[Whether to implant a defibrillator or not? The Possibility of Using the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score Calculator in Real Practice].

AIM: To study the predictive capabilities of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator in assessing the benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 388 patients with NYHA II-IV functional class chronic heart failure (CHF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 % who underwent ICD placement for the primary prevention of SCD. Patients were followed up for two years to record the endpoints of first-time paroxysmal sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) or non-arrhythmic death. RESULTS: According to the results of calculation with the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator, 276 (71 %) patients had a high risk of VT (score ≥7) and 150 (39 %) had a high risk of non-arrhythmic death (score ≥3). 336 (94%) patients would benefit from an ICD: 148 (38 %) with a high level of probability and 218 (56 %) with a medium level of probability. According to the incidence of endpoints, VT episodes predominated in the low-ICD benefit group (36%), while the high-ICD benefit group had a relatively high incidence of non-arrhythmic death (12%). CONCLUSION: The results obtained for a cohort of Russian patients with CHF and reduced LVEF indicated that the use of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in routine clinical practice does not improve the stratification of SCD risk compared to the traditional approach to selecting patients with CHF for ICD based on the LVEF value.

Age differences of patients treated with wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicentre registry.

BACKGROUND: Wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) are used as a 'bridging' technology in patients, who are temporarily at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Several factors should be taken into consideration, for example patient selection, compliance and optimal drug treatment, when WCD is prescribed. We aimed to present real-world data from seven centres from Germany and Switzerland according to age differences regarding the outcome, prognosis, WCD data and compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 04/2012 and 03/2021, 1105 patients were included in this registry. Outcome data according to age differences (old ≥45 years compared to young <45 years) were analysed. At young age, WCDs were more often prescribed due to congenital heart disease and myocarditis. On the other hand, ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was more present in older patients. Wear days of WCD were similar between both groups (p = .115). In addition, during the WCD use, documented arrhythmic life-threatening events were comparable [sustained ventricular tachycardia: 5.8% vs. 7.7%, ventricular fibrillation (VF) .5% vs. .6%] and consequently the rate of appropriate shocks was similar between both groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction improvement was documented over follow-up with a better improvement in younger patients as compared to older patients (77% vs. 63%, p = .002). In addition, at baseline, the rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly higher in the older age group (23% vs. 8%; p = .001). The rate of permanent cardiac implantable electronic device implantation (CiED) was lower in the younger group (25% vs. 36%, p = .05). The compliance rate defined as wearing WCD at least 20 h per day was significantly lower in young patients compared to old patients (68.9% vs. 80.9%, p < .001). During the follow-up, no significant difference regarding all-cause mortality or arrhythmic death was documented in both groups. A low compliance rate of wearing WCD is predicted by young patients and patients suffering from non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. CONCLUSION: Although the compliance rate in different age groups is high, the average wear hours tended to be lower in young patients compared to older patients. The clinical events were similar in younger patients compared to older patients.

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high rate of sudden death after myocardial infarction among patients with a low ejection fraction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are contraindicated until 40 to 90 days after myocardial infarction. Whether a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator would reduce the incidence of sudden death during this high-risk period is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with acute myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator plus guideline-directed therapy (the device group) or to receive only guideline-directed therapy (the control group). The primary outcome was the composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachyarrhythmia at 90 days (arrhythmic death). Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and nonarrhythmic death. RESULTS: Of 2302 participants, 1524 were randomly assigned to the device group and 778 to the control group. Participants in the device group wore the device for a median of 18.0 hours per day (interquartile range, 3.8 to 22.7). Arrhythmic death occurred in 1.6% of the participants in the device group and in 2.4% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.21; P=0.18). Death from any cause occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the device group and in 4.9% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98; uncorrected P=0.04), and nonarrhythmic death in 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively (relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.19; uncorrected P=0.15). Of the 48 participants in the device group who died, 12 were wearing the device at the time of death. A total of 20 participants in the device group (1.3%) received an appropriate shock, and 9 (0.6%) received an inappropriate shock. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator did not lead to a significantly lower rate of the primary outcome of arrhythmic death than control. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Zoll Medical; VEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01446965 .).

Deep Brain Stimulation Generator Failure due to External Defibrillation in a Patient with Essential Tremor.

There exist only two case reports to date of open cardiac defibrillation with deep brain stimulator system (DBS) implantation. We report a 64-year-old male with DBS system in place for essential tremor who underwent cardiac defibrillation after cardiac arrest. Afterwards, his device impedances were all high and his tremor symptoms returned. Both problems resolved with implantation of a new generator and required no changes to the intracranial leads or extension cables. This is significantly different from the two previous reports. One included a significantly different DBS system relying on transcutaneous RF transmission and reported a lesioning effect after cardioversion. The other utilized a modern DBS system but reported damage to the generator and intracranial leads. We report that only the generator sustained damage, and that there were no intracranial changes that occurred.

BET 1: Can hands-on defibrillation be performed safely?

A short cut review was carried out to see whether hands-on defibrillation could be performed safely. 6 papers presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. It is concluded that hands-on defibrillation has the potential to be performed safely if the rescuer uses appropriate electrical insulating barriers such as polyethylene gloves or class 1 electrical insulating gloves. The safety profile of nitrile gloves is unclear. Since detection of shock was used as a proxy for safety, additional investigation is warranted before hands-on defibrillation becomes common practice.

Automated external defibrillators in the hospital: A case of medical reversal.

Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) emerged in the 1980s as an important innovation in pre-hospital emergency cardiac care (ECC). In the years since, the American Heart Association (AHA) and the International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation (ILCOR) have promoted AED technology for use in hospitals as well, resulting in the widespread purchase and use of AED-capable defibrillators. In-hospital use of AEDs now appears to have decreased survival from cardiac arrests. This article will look at the use of AEDs in hospitals as a case of "medical reversal." Medical reversal occurs when an accepted, widely used treatment is found to be ineffective or even harmful. This article will discuss the issue of AEDs in the hospital using a conceptual framework provided by recent work on medical reversal. It will go on to consider the implications of the reversal for in-hospital resuscitation programs and emergency medicine more generally.

Safety of the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) in Patients with Implanted Pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important approach for better risk stratification, applied to patients considered to be at high risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Patients with implanted pacemakers may also become candidates for use of the WCD. However, there is a potential risk that pacemaker signals may mislead the WCD detection algorithm and cause inappropriate WCD shock delivery. The aim of the study was to test the impact of different types of pacing, various right ventricular (RV) lead positions, and pacing modes for potential misleading of the WCD detection algorithm. METHODS: Sixty patients with implanted pacemakers received the WCD for a short time and each pacing mode (AAI, VVI, and DDD) was tested for at least 30 seconds in unipolar and bipolar pacing configuration. In case of triggering the WCD detection algorithm and starting the sequence of arrhythmia alarms, shock delivery was prevented by pushing of the response buttons. RESULTS: In six of 60 patients (10%), continuous unipolar pacing in DDD mode triggered the WCD detection algorithm. In no patient, triggering occurred with bipolar DDD pacing, unipolar and bipolar AAI, and VVI pacing. Triggering was independent of pacing amplitude, RV pacing lead position, and pulse generator implantation site. CONCLUSION: Unipolar DDD pacing bears a high risk of false triggering of the WCD detection algorithm. Other types of unipolar pacing and all bipolar pacing modes do not seem to mislead the WCD detection algorithm. Therefore, patients with no reprogrammable unipolar DDD pacing should not become candidates for the WCD.

Use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in high-risk cardiac patients: data from the Prospective Registry of Patients Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WEARIT-II Registry).

BACKGROUND: Prospective data on the safety and efficacy of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) in a real-world setting are lacking. The Prospective Registry of Patients Using the Wearable Defibrillator (WEARIT-II) Registry was designed to provide real-world data on the WCD as a strategy during a period of risk stratification. METHODS AND RESULTS: The WEARIT-II Registry enrolled 2000 patients with ischemic (n=805, 40%), or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (n=927, 46%), or congenital/inherited heart disease (n=268) prescribed WCD between August 2011 and February 2014. Clinical data, arrhythmia events, implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, and improvement in ejection fraction were captured. The median age was 62 years; the median ejection fraction was 25%. The median WCD wear time was 90 days, with median daily use of 22.5 hours. There was a total of 120 sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 41 patients, of whom 54% received appropriate WCD shock. Only 10 patients (0.5%) received inappropriate WCD therapy. The rate of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias by 3 months was 3% among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and congenital/inherited heart disease, and 1% among nonischemic patients (P=0.02). At the end of WCD use, 840 patients (42%) were implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The most frequent reason not to implant an implantable cardioverter defibrillator following WCD use was improvement in ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The WEARIT-II Registry demonstrates a high rate of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias at 3 months in at-risk patients who are not eligible for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and suggests that the WCD can be safely used to protect patients during this period of risk assessment.

Current Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections by Infectious Disease Specialists.

Management guidelines for cardiac implantable electronic device infections exist, but practice patterns of infectious disease (ID) specialists are not well known. We found that while many ID specialist practices mirror existing guidelines, a combination of complete device removal and prolonged antimicrobial therapy is favored when Staphylococcus aureus is involved.

Multi-phase implementation of automated external defibrillator use by nurses during in-hospital cardiac arrest and its impact on survival.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the impact of a medical directive allowing nurses to use defibrillators in automated external defibrillator-mode (AED) on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outcomes. METHODS: We completed a health record review of consecutive IHCA for which resuscitation was attempted using a pragmatic multi-phase before-after cohort design. We report Utstein outcomes before (Jan.2012-Aug.2013;Control) the implementation of the AED medical directive following usual practice (Sept.2013-Aug.2016;Phase 1), and following the addition of a theory-based educational video (Sept.2016-Dec.2017;Phase 2). RESULTS: There were 753 IHCA with the following characteristics (Before n = 195; Phase 1n = 372; Phase 2n = 186): mean age 66, 60.0% male, 79.3% witnessed, 29.1% noncardiac-monitored medical ward, 23.9% cardiac cause, and initial ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (VF/VT) 27.2%. Comparing the Before, Phase 1 and 2: an AED was used 0 time (0.0%), 21 times (5.7%), 15 times (8.1%); mean times to 1st analysis were 7 min, 3 min and 1 min (p < 0.0001); mean times to 1st shock were 12 min, 10 min and 8 min (p = 0.32); return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was 63.6%, 59.4% and 58.1% (p = 0.77); survival was 24.6%, 21.0% and 25.8% (p = 0.37). Among IHCA in VF/VT (n = 165), time to 1st analysis and 1st shock decreased by 5 min (p = 0.01) and 6 min (p = 0.23), and ROSC and survival increased by 3.0% (p = 0.80) and 15.6% (p = 0.31). There was no survival benefit overall (1.2%; p = 0.37) or within noncardiac-monitored areas (-7.2%; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a medical directive allowing for AED use by nurses successfully improved key outcomes for IHCA victims, particularly following the theory-based education video and among the VF/VT group.

Commotio Cordis in Non-Sport-Related Events: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Commotio cordis is an increasingly recognized cause of sudden cardiac death. Although commonly linked with athletes, many events occur in non-sport-related settings. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to characterize and compare non-sport-related vs sport-related commotio cordis. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched for all cases of commotio cordis from inception to January 5, 2022. RESULTS: Of 334 commotio cordis cases identified, 121 (36%) occurred in non-sport-related contexts, which included assault (76%), motor vehicle accidents (7%), and daily activities (16%). Projectiles were implicated significantly less in non-sport-related events (5% vs 94%, respectively; P < 0.001). Nonprojectile etiologies in non-sport-related events mostly consisted of impacts with body parts (79%). Both categories affected similar younger aged demographic (P = 0.10). The proportion of female victims was significantly higher in non-sport-related events (13% vs 2%, respectively; P = 0.025). Mortality was significantly higher in non-sport-related events (88% vs 66%, respectively; P < 0.001). In non-sport-related events, rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (27% vs 97%, respectively; P < 0.001) and defibrillation (17% vs 81%, respectively; P < 0.001) were both lower and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 min (80% vs 5%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Commotio cordis occurs across a spectrum of non-sport-related settings including assault, motor vehicle accidents, and daily activities. Both categories affected a younger and male-predominant demographic. Mortality is higher in non-sport-related commotio cordis, likely owing to lower rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, automated external defibrillator availability, and extended time to resuscitation. Increased awareness of non-sport-related commotio cordis is essential to develop a means of prevention and mortality reduction, with earlier recognition and prompt resuscitation measures.

A novel artificial intelligence based algorithm to reduce wearable cardioverter-defibrillator alarms.

BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important tool in mitigating sudden cardiac death (SCD). The WCD provides patient alarms for detected arrhythmias or electrical noise/artifact. Some patients experience frequent alarms for artifact. We sought to evaluate the effects of a novel artificial intelligence algorithm to reduce alarms related to electrical noise or artifact (advanced arrhythmia discrimination algorithm, AArD). METHODS: A retrospective review of a large commercial database of prescribed WCD. Patients prescribed the WCD during the years 2017 (discrimination algorithm, DA group) or during 2019 (advanced arrhythmia discrimination algorithm, AArD) were analyzed. A total of 96,000 patients were sampled, 48,000 in the control group (using standard direct algorithm, DA) and compared to 48,000 in the intervention AArD (4000 per group per month) for 12 months. The AArD further discriminates ECG signals based on a machine-learning algorithm utilizing intensity and frequency beyond the standard DA. Outcomes regarding alarms, arrhythmias, and safety were analyzed. RESULTS: The AArD algorithm was associated with a significant decrease in frequency of alarms over the course of WCD use; 54% of patients in the AARD versus 27% of DA had 0 alarms (P < .001). In the entire cohort, there was a 56% relative reduction in alarms with the use of AArD. Appropriate arrhythmia treatment time was not significantly different between the groups (44 s DA vs 45 s AArD [p = ns]). CONCLUSIONS: A novel artificial intelligence algorithm reduces alarms without delaying appropriate therapy for VT/VF. These changes may improve compliance and quality of life in patients with a WCD.

Analysis of automated external defibrillator device failures reported to the Food and Drug Administration.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Automated external defibrillators are essential for treatment of cardiac arrest by lay rescuers and must determine when to shock and if they are functioning correctly. We seek to characterize automated external defibrillator failures reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and whether battery failures are properly detected by automated external defibrillators. METHODS: FDA adverse event reports are catalogued in the Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) database. We developed and internally validated an instrument for analyzing MAUDE data, reviewing all reports in which a fatality occurred. Two trained reviewers independently analyzed each report, and a third resolved discrepancies or passed them to a committee for resolution. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eighty-four adverse events were reported between June 1993 and October 2008, of which 1,150 were failed defibrillation attempts. Thirty-seven automated external defibrillators never powered on, 252 failed to complete rhythm analysis, and 524 failed to deliver a recommended shock. In 149 cases, the operator disagreed with the device's rhythm analysis. In 54 cases, the defibrillator stated the batteries were low and in 110 other instances powered off unexpectedly. Interrater agreement between reviewers 1 and 2 ranged by question from 69.0% to 98.6% and for most likely cause was 55.9%. Agreement was obtained for 93.7% to 99.6% of questions by the third reviewer. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by the arbitration committee. CONCLUSION: MAUDE information is often incomplete and frequently no corroborating data are available. Some conditions not detected by automated external defibrillators during self-test cause units to power off unexpectedly, causing defibrillation delays. Backup units frequently provide shocks to patients.

Elevated defibrillation threshold despite programmable tilt, pulse width, or implant of subcutaneous coil: role of higher energy devices.

The value of defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) has been debated in recent years, especially with developments in the technology of manufactured defibrillators, most of which are capable of delivering high energies (35 Joules [J]) and have programmable features such as tilt percentage and pulse width duration that increase the efficiency of biphasic shocks. The following is an unusual case of elevated DFT despite all attempts of invasive and noninvasive approaches--it highlights the importance of performing DFT testing particularly when implantable cardioverter defibrillator is indicated for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death and the need for devices capable of delivering higher energies >35 J.

The Case for Home AED in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults Not Meeting Criteria for ICD.

Children, adolescents, and young adults with conditions such as cardiomyopathies and channelopathies are at higher risk of sudden cardiac death caused by lethal arrhythmias, especially ventricular fibrillation. Timely defibrillation saves lives. Patients thought to be at significantly high risk of sudden death typically undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Patients thought to be at lower risk are typically followed medically but do not undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement. However, low risk does not equal no risk. Compared with the general population, many of these patients are at significantly higher risk for lethal arrhythmias. We make the case that such individuals and families will benefit from having an at-home automatic external defibrillator. Used in conjunction with conventional measures such as training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, an at-home automatic external defibrillator could lead to significantly shortened time to defibrillation with better overall and neurological survival. We recommend that the cost of such home automatic external defibrillators should be covered by medical insurance.

The value of wearable cardioverter defibrillator in adult patients with recent myocardial infarction: Economic and clinical implications from a health technology assessment perspective.

AIMS: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) causes high mortality and substantial societal burdens for healthcare systems (HSs). The risk of SCD is significantly increased in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction (MI). Current guidelines recommend re-evaluation of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation 40 days post-MI, earliest. Medical therapy alone does not provide sufficient protection against SCD, especially in the first month post-MI, and needs time. Consequently, there is a gap in care of high-risk patients upon hospital discharge. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is a proven safe, effective therapy, which temporarily protects from SCD. Little information on WCD cost-effectiveness exists. We conducted this research to demonstrate the medical need of the device in the post-MI setting defining WCD cost-effectiveness. METHODS & RESULTS: Based on a randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Italian and international data, we developed a Markov-model comparing costs, patient survival, and quality-of-life, and calculated the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of a WCD vs. current standard of care in post-MI patients. The rather conservative base case analysis - based on the RCT intention-to-treat results - produced an ICER of €47,709 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained, which is far lower than the accepted threshold of €60,000 in the Italian National HS. The ICER per Life Year (LY) gained was €38,276. CONCLUSION: WCD utilization in post-MI patients is clinically beneficial and cost-effective. While improving guideline directed patient care, the WCD can also contribute to a more efficient use of resources in the Italian HS, and potentially other HSs as well.

Real life experience with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in an international multicenter Registry.

Patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) may benefit from wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) by avoiding immediate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Different factors play an important role including patient selection, compliance and optimal drug treatment. We aimed to present real world data from 4 centers from Germany and Switzerland. Between 04/2012 and 03/2019, 708 patients were included in this registry. Patients were followed up over a mean time of 28 ± 35.5 months. Outcome data including gender differences and different etiologies of cardiomyopathy were analyzed. Out of 708 patients (81.8% males, mean age 61.0 ± 14.6), 44.6% of patients had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 39.8% ischemic cardiomyopathy, 7.9% myocarditis, 5.4% prior need for ICD explantation and 2.1% channelopathy. The mean wear time of WCD was 21.2 ± 4.3 h per day. In 46% of patients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was > 35% during follow-up. The younger the patient was, the higher the LVEF and the lower the wear hours per day were. The total shock rate during follow-up was 2.7%. Whereas an appropriate WCD shock was documented in 16 patients (2.2%), 3 patients received an inappropriate ICD shock (0.5%). During follow-up, implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device was carried out in 34.5% of patients. When comparing German patients (n = 516) to Swiss patients (n = 192), Swiss patients presented with longer wear days (70.72 ± 49.47 days versus 58.06 ± 40.45 days; p = 0.001) and a higher ICD implantation rate compared to German patients (48.4% versus 29.3%; p = 0.001), although LVEF at follow-up was similar between both groups. Young age is a negative independent predictor for the compliance in this large registry. The most common indication for WCD was non-ischemic cardiomyopathy followed by ischemic cardiomyopathy. The compliance rate was generally high with a decrease of wear hours per day at younger age. Slight differences were found between Swiss and German patients, which might be related to differences in mentality for ICD implantation.

Electromagnetic interference between external defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices.

BACKGROUND: Implantable heart rhythm devices are susceptible to interference in hospitals where electromagnetic interference (EMI) sources are ubiquitous. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report three cases in which EMI from the external defibrillator caused the inability to interrogate Boston Scientific cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices. We have documented interference with the Boston Scientific CRT-P Contact Renewal device model numbers H120/H125 (Natick, MA, USA) and two brands of external defibrillators: the Philips Heartstart XL model number M4735A (Andover, MA, USA) and the Hewlett-Packard Codemaster model number M1722B (Palo Alto, CA, USA). For device implants, we routinely place external pacing pads with the external defibrillator in the "standby" mode for transcutaneous pacing so that only the pacer "start/stop" button needs to be pressed when necessary. We have not been able to interrogate three consecutive Boston Scientific CRT-P devices prior to closure while the external defibrillator had the back-up pacing mode on "standby." In our initial case, a second device was opened because this interaction was not recognized. We documented EMI with the standby pacing mode ON and discovered that by disabling only the "standby" pacing mode on the external defibrillator, the device could be interrogated without difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: This is a case series reporting EMI with a Boston Scientific CRT-P Contact Renewal device H120/H125 telemetry from an external defibrillator with pacing mode on "standby." Failure to recognize this important interaction may lead to inappropriate device and resource utilization.