A Prospective Evaluation of Two Defibrillation Safety Margin Techniques in Patients with Low Defibrillation Energy Requirements |
| |
Authors: | S. ADAM STRICKBERGER M.D. K. CHING MAN D.O. JOSEPH SOUZA M.D. ADAM ZIVIN M.D. RAUL WEISS M.D. BRADLEY P. KNIGHT M.D. RAJIVA GOYAL M.D. EMILE G. DAOUD M.D. FRED MORADY M.D. |
| |
Affiliation: | University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan |
| |
Abstract: | Low-Energy Defibrillation. Introduction : In patients undergoing defibrillator implantation, an appropriate defibrillation safety margin has been considered to be either 10 J or an energy equal to the defibrillation energy requirement. However, a previous clinical report suggested that a larger safety margin may be required in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to compare the defibrillation efficacy of the two safety margin techniques in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. Methods and Results : Sixty patients who underwent implantation of a defibrillator and who had a low defibrillation energy requirement (≤ 6 J) underwent six separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation, at least 5 minutes apart. For each of the first three inductions of ventricular fibrillation, the first two shocks were equal to either the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J (14.6 ± 1.0 J), or to twice the defibrillation energy requirement (9.9 ± 2.3 J). The alternate technique was used for the subsequent three inductions of ventricular fibrillation. For each induction of ventricular fibrillation, the first shock success rate was 99.5%± 4.3% for shocks using the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J, compared to 95.0%± 17.2% for shocks at twice the defibrillation energy requirement (P = 0.02). The charge time (P < 0.0001) and the total duration of ventricular fibrillation (P < 0.0001) were each approximately 1 second longer with the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J technique. Conclusion : This study is the first to compare prospectively the defibrillation efficacy of two defibrillation safety margins. In patients with a defibrillation energy requirement ≤ 6 J, a higher rate of successful defibrillation is achieved with a safety margin of 10 J than with a safety margin equal to the defibrillation energy requirement. |
| |
Keywords: | ventricular fibrillation ventricular defibrillation probability of defibrillation implantable cardioverter defibrillator |
|
|