Utility of Routine Follow-Up Defibrillator Threshold Testing in Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Populations
Authors: ELIZABETH A. STEPHENSON1; FRANK CECCHIN1; EDWARD P. WALSH1; CHARLES I. BERUL1
Source: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Volume 16, Number 1, January 2005 , pp. 69-73(5)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
Abstract:
DFT Follow-Up in Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Populations. Introduction: Recent studies have suggested that routine defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in adults may not be necessary. The congenital heart disease and pediatric populations are a unique group of ICD recipients having a higher incidence of lead failure. We investigated the utility of follow-up DFT testing in this population. Methods and Results: The records of 155 ICD recipients at one center were retrospectively reviewed, and patients having one or more follow-up DFT tests were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups. The routine group consisted of 58 follow-up DFT procedures in 46 patients, without known changes in ICD parameters. The prompted group consisted of 21 follow-up DFT procedures in 18 patients, motivated by clinical concerns about changes in ICD lead status. Of 58 routine DFTs performed at a mean postimplant duration of 32 ± 23 months (range 278), 7 (12%) had reprogramming, and 1 required a hardware change as a result of the testing. Of the 21 prompted DFTs performed, 7 required device reprogramming, and 3 required hardware upgrade. Overall, 19 (24%) of 79 procedures detected clinically significant changes, requiring reprogramming or ICD system revision. No complications were seen from follow-up DFT testing. Conclusion: A high rate of abnormalities was found at follow-up DFT testing in this population, especially in the group of patients with clinically prompted testing. Clinically indicated DFT testing, as expected, has a high yield of important information on device function in congenital heart disease and pediatric populations. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 16, pp. 69-73, January 2005)Keywords: implantable defibrillator; pediatric devices; congenital heart disease
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2005.04528.x
Affiliations: 1: Department of Cardiology, Children's Hospital, Boston, and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Click here for Page Help