Testing the Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator After Implantation—Is It Necessary?

The results of intraoperative and postoperative predischarge implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) testing of 211 consecutive patients, starting at 15 J and requiring two successful terminations of induced VT/VF with a relative defibrillation safety margin (DSM) of >10 J, were reviewed. The aim was to define the type of intraoperative response that would make postoperative predischarge testing unnecessary. The intraoperative responses were divided into three types: A, a DSM > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of < or =20 J; B, a DSM of > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J; and C, a DSM <10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J. At operation, the responses to defibrillation were A, 88.6%; B, 7.1%; and C, 4.3%. Accepting an A response only would leave 11.4% of the patients for postoperative testing. The positive and negative predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative C response were 0.78 and 0.97, respectively. Similarly, the predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative B or C response were 0.71 and 0.97, respectively. The postoperative testing responses were A, 89.1%; B, 4.3%; and C, 6.6%. In summary, an intraoperative A response was sufficient to make a postoperative defibrillation testing unnecessary, while it was found that intraoperative B and C responders should undergo postoperative testing. Applying these criteria, approximately 90% of the patients could be discharged without any postoperative induction test.     

Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Recipient Attitudes towards Device Deactivation: How Much do Patients Want to Know?

Background: Patients receiving implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) often have severely impaired left ventricular function and a poor prognosis. Having an ICD in situ effectively denies them the possibility of a quick, arrhythmic death. It is still unclear if and when the end of life and device deactivation should be discussed with patients and how much patients want to know prior to ICD implantation. Methods: Patients with an active ICD for chronic heart failure were interviewed regarding their attitude toward the ICD, their recollection of the consent procedure, and how they felt the end of life should be discussed with ICD patients (n = 54). Patients who had received ICD therapies (n = 25) were reviewed as a subgroup with extended questions regarding attitudes toward device deactivation. Results: Fifty‐four patients were recruited. Most patients were not aware that the ICD could be deactivated. The vast majority of patients (84%) wanted to be involved in the deactivation decision; 40% felt this discussion should be prior to ICD implantation but others felt the discussion should only occur if the patient was terminally ill (16%) or in the last few days of life (5%). Conclusion: Patients with ICDs are routinely counseled about the benefits of ICDs, but options for device deactivation are not well understood by patients. Most patients would like to be involved in deactivation decisions and we feel this should be discussed well in advance. (PACE 2011; 34:1628–1633)     

Shock as a Determinant of Poor Patient‐Centered Outcomes in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients: Is There More to It Than Meets the Eye?

The medical benefits of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are well established, but ICD shocks are known to influence patient‐centered outcomes. In this viewpoint, we examine the strength of the evidence as found in primary and secondary prevention trials that used quality of life as an outcome, and compare the influence of ICD shock with other factors (e.g., heart failure and psychological factors) as determinants of outcomes, with a view to providing recommendations for clinical practice and future research. Based on the large‐scale primary and secondary prevention trials (i.e., CABG‐PATCH, CIDS, AVID, AMIOVIRT, SCD‐HeFT, MADIT‐II, and DEFINITE), evidence for an association between ICD shocks and quality of life is mixed, with some indication that the influence of shocks may depend largely on the interval between shocks and assessment of quality of life. In order to improve the clinical management of ICD patients, we need to adopt a more rigorous and standardized methodology in future studies in order to be able to draw firm conclusions about the impact of ICD shocks on individual patients. We also need to acknowledge that the impact of shocks on psychological functioning and quality of life may not be as straightforward as previously assumed. Given that programming of the ICD is changing, leading to fewer shocks and improved quality of life, it may be timely to also examine the influence of other determinants (e.g., heart failure progression and the patient's psychological profile) of patient‐centered outcomes both in research and in clinical practice. (PACE 2010; 33:1430–1436)     

Infra‐His Block during Atrial Pacing—Functional or Pathological?

The significance of infra‐His conduction abnormalities observed in the electrophysiology lab can be difficult to assess. In this report we show infra‐His conduction block during programmed atrial stimulation in a patient and discuss if this should be considered functional or pathological.     

Inappropriate Shock: A Failure of SVT Discriminators in a Dual Chamber ICD?

Inappropriate shock remains a major issue in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. We examine an inappropriate shock delivered in a patient with atrial tachycardia that conducted 1:1. We reconstruct the device algorithms that led to therapy delivery and discuss programming changes that could be considered.     

Nursing migration: global treasure hunt or disaster‐in‐the‐making?

International nurse migration--moving from one country to another in the search of employment--is the focus of this article. The majority of member states of the World Health Organization report a shortage, maldistribution and misutilisation of nurses. International recruitment has been seen as a solution. The negative effects of international migration on the 'supplier' countries may be recognised today but are not effectively addressed. Nurse migration is motivated by the search for professional development, better quality of life and personal safety. Pay and learning opportunities continue to be the most frequently reported incentives for nurse migration, especially by nurses from less-developed countries. Career opportunities were considered key incentives for nurses emigrating from high-income countries. Language was reported to be a significant barrier. The positive global economic/social/professional development resulting from international migration needs to be weighed against a substantial 'brain and skills drain' experienced by supplier countries. The vulnerable status of migrant nurses is also of concern in certain cases. The focus on short-term solutions as opposed to resolving the problem of a worldwide shortage of nurses causes great concern. Recent initiatives attempt to curb or channel international recruitment. The delicate balance between recognising the right of individual nurses to migrate and a collective concern for the health of a nation's population must be achieved.