Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: Prevalence and clinical predictors

Osnat T. Gurevitz, Paul Andrew Friedman, Michael Glikson, Jane M. Trusty, Karla V. Ballman, Ana G. Rosales, David L. Hayes, Stephen C. Hammill, Charles D. Swerdlow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies. Methods and Results: The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (≥10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5%) had ≥10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy. Conclusion: Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5% of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)728-732
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Volume14
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 1 2003

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Coronary Disease
Coronary Artery Disease
Multivariate Analysis

Keywords

  • Defibrillation threshold
  • Electrical shocks
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Upper limit of vulnerability
  • Ventricular arrhythmias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Gurevitz, O. T., Friedman, P. A., Glikson, M., Trusty, J. M., Ballman, K. V., Rosales, A. G., ... Swerdlow, C. D. (2003). Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: Prevalence and clinical predictors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 14(7), 728-732.

Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold : Prevalence and clinical predictors. / Gurevitz, Osnat T.; Friedman, Paul Andrew; Glikson, Michael; Trusty, Jane M.; Ballman, Karla V.; Rosales, Ana G.; Hayes, David L.; Hammill, Stephen C.; Swerdlow, Charles D.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Vol. 14, No. 7, 01.07.2003, p. 728-732.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gurevitz, OT, Friedman, PA, Glikson, M, Trusty, JM, Ballman, KV, Rosales, AG, Hayes, DL, Hammill, SC & Swerdlow, CD 2003, 'Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: Prevalence and clinical predictors', Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 728-732.
Gurevitz, Osnat T. ; Friedman, Paul Andrew ; Glikson, Michael ; Trusty, Jane M. ; Ballman, Karla V. ; Rosales, Ana G. ; Hayes, David L. ; Hammill, Stephen C. ; Swerdlow, Charles D. / Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold : Prevalence and clinical predictors. In: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. 2003 ; Vol. 14, No. 7. pp. 728-732.
@article{e0d11ff96f354aa6ba99b42ab96ccaf1,
title = "Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: Prevalence and clinical predictors",
abstract = "Introduction: Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies. Methods and Results: The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (≥10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5{\%}) had ≥10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy. Conclusion: Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5{\%} of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.",
keywords = "Defibrillation threshold, Electrical shocks, Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Upper limit of vulnerability, Ventricular arrhythmias",
author = "Gurevitz, {Osnat T.} and Friedman, {Paul Andrew} and Michael Glikson and Trusty, {Jane M.} and Ballman, {Karla V.} and Rosales, {Ana G.} and Hayes, {David L.} and Hammill, {Stephen C.} and Swerdlow, {Charles D.}",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "728--732",
journal = "Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology",
issn = "1045-3873",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold

T2 - Prevalence and clinical predictors

AU - Gurevitz, Osnat T.

AU - Friedman, Paul Andrew

AU - Glikson, Michael

AU - Trusty, Jane M.

AU - Ballman, Karla V.

AU - Rosales, Ana G.

AU - Hayes, David L.

AU - Hammill, Stephen C.

AU - Swerdlow, Charles D.

PY - 2003/7/1

Y1 - 2003/7/1

N2 - Introduction: Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies. Methods and Results: The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (≥10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5%) had ≥10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy. Conclusion: Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5% of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.

AB - Introduction: Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies. Methods and Results: The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (≥10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5%) had ≥10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy. Conclusion: Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5% of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.

KW - Defibrillation threshold

KW - Electrical shocks

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - Upper limit of vulnerability

KW - Ventricular arrhythmias

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038502014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038502014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12930253

AN - SCOPUS:0038502014

VL - 14

SP - 728

EP - 732

JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

SN - 1045-3873

IS - 7

ER -