Abstract
We report the first clinical case of ineffective high-voltage therapy with 36 J and subsequent effective therapy with 40 J in a patient with electrical storm who had previously received a high-energy implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD, Fortify VR, 1233–40Q St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA). Using a combination of high energy and optimized fixed millisecond duration biphasic waveform shock, successful defibrillation could be achieved at 8 J below the programmed maximum energy level.
Zusammenfassung
Wir berichten über den ersten klinischen Fall mit wiederholt ineffektiver 36-J-Defibrillation und anschließend erfolgreicher 40-J-Therapie bei einem Patienten mit elektrischem Sturm und implantiertem Hochenergie-ICD-System der neuesten Generation (Fortify VR, 1233-40Q St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA). Mittels Kombination aus hoher Energieabgabe und optimierter zeitgesteuerte biphasischer Schockimpulsform konnte eine erfolgreiche Defibrillation 8 J unterhalb des maximal programmierbaren Energielevels erreicht werden.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB et al (2005) Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 352:225–237
Duray GZ, Schmitt J, Richter S et al (2009) Arrhythmic death in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a long-term study over a 10 year implantation period. Europace 11:1462–1468
Kroll MW, Tchou PJ (2000) Testing of implantable defibrillator functions at implantation. In: Ellenbogen KA, Kay GN, Wilkoff BL (eds) Clinical cardiac pacing and defibrillation. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 540–561
Rinaldi CA, Simon RD, Geelen P et al (2003) A randomised prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 26:1684–1690
Anderson KP (2005) Sudden cardiac death unresponsive to implantable defibrillator therapy: an urgent target for clinicians, industry and government. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 14:71–78
Natarajan S, Henthorn R, Burroughs J et al (2007) “Tuned” defibrillation waveforms outperform 50/50% tilt defibrillation waveforms: a randomized multi-center study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 30:139–142
Denman RA, Umesan C, Martin PT et al (2006) Benefit of millisecond waveform durations for patients with high defibrillation thresholds. Heart Rhythm 3:536–541
Calvi V, Dugo D, Capodanno D et al (2010) Intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion: do we really need it. Am Heart J 159:98–102
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00800384?term=Shockless+IMPLant+Evaluation&rank=1. Accessed 20 June 2011
Conflict of interest
The corresponding author states the following: Frank Amberger is an employee of St. Jude Medical GmbH, Germany. The other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erkapic, D., Amberger, F., Bushoven, P. et al. More safety with more energy. Herzschr. Elektrophys. 22, 252–254 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-011-0159-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-011-0159-5
Keywords
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
- Electrical storm
- Defibrillator threshold
- High energy
- Ventricular tachycardia