Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Systems—A Simple Issue?

Abstract

BackgroundThe results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S‐ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard‐of‐care prospective single‐center S‐ICD registry. Methods and ResultsIn the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S‐ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22–0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80‐J shock. ConclusionsAlthough it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S‐ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.

Keywords

• defibrillator testing
• device complications
• implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, subcutaneous
• sudden cardiac death