Clinical impact of defibrillation testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular fibrillation is routinely induced during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion to assess defibrillator performance, but this strategy is experiencing a progressive decline. We aimed to assess the efficacy of defibrillator therapies and long-term outcome in a cohort of patients that underwent defibrillator implantation with and without defibrillation testing. METHODS: Retrospective observational series of consecutive patients undergoing initial defibrillator insertion or generator replacement. We registered spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias incidence and therapy efficacy, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients underwent defibrillator implantation (111 with and 434 without defibrillation testing). After 19 (range 9-31) months of follow-up, the death rate per observation year (4% vs. 4%; p = 0.91) and the rate of patients with defibrillator-treated ventricular arrhythmic events per observation year (with test: 10% vs. without test: 12%; p = 0.46) were similar. The generalized estimating equations-adjusted first shock probability of success in patients with test (95%; CI 88-100%) vs. without test (98%; CI 96-100%; p = 0.42) and the proportion of successful antitachycardia therapies (with test: 87% vs. without test: 80%; p = 0.35) were similar between groups. There was no difference in the annualized rate of failed first shock per patient and per shocked patient between groups (5% vs. 4%; p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, that included an unselected population of patients with a defibrillator, no difference was found in overall mortality, first shock efficacy and rate of failed shocks regardless of whether defibrillation testing was performed or not.

Clinical experience of two Israeli medical centers with the implantable loop recorder in patients with syncope: from diagnosis to treatment.

BACKGROUND: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is an important tool for the evaluation of unexplained syncope, particularly in cases of rarely occurring arrhythmia. OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical experience of two Israeli medical centers with the ILR. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients with unexplained syncope evaluated with the ILR at Rabin Medical Center (2006-2010) and Wolfson Medical Center (2000-2009). RESULTS: The study group included 75 patients (44 males) followed for 11.9 +/- 9.5 months after ILR implantation. Patients' mean age was 64 +/- 20 years. The ILR identified an arrhythmic mechanism of syncope in 20 patients (17 bradyarrhythmias, 3 tachyarrhythmias) and excluded arrhythmias in 12, for a diagnostic yield of 42.7%. It was not diagnostic in 17 patients (22.7%) at the time of explant; 26 patients (34.7%) were still in follow-up. In two patients ILR results that were initially negative were reversed by later ILR tracings. The patients with bradyarrhythmias included 9 of 16 (56.3%) with surface electrocardiogram conduction disturbances and 2 of 12 (16.7%) with negative findings on carotid sinus massage. All bradyarrhythmic patients received pacemakers; the seven patients for whom post-intervention data were available had no or mild symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The ILR has a high diagnostic yield. Pre-ILR findings correlating with the ILR results are conduction disturbances (positive predictor of arrhythmia) and negative carotid sinus massage results (negative predictor of arrhythmia). Proper patient instruction is necessary to obtain accurate results. Caution is advised when excluding an arrhythmia on the basis of ILR tracings, and long-term follow-up is warranted.