Abstract 4368552: Management of unsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac devices

Background: Unsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular tachytherapies may occur due to patient and/or device related factors; appropriate management strategies after failed defibrillation therapy have been incompletely described. Objectives: To report on the management and outcomes of patients with implantable cardiac devices and unsuccessful defibrillation therapies. Methods: A single-center cohort of patients with ICDs was examined, patients with unsuccessful ICD therapies were included. Demographic and device features, and survival free from recurrent unsuccessful device therapy was examined among patients undergoing operative versus non-operative management. Results: Among 1449 patients with ICDs, 40 patients (2.8%) were identified with unsuccessful defibrillation therapies (mean age 59±15 years, ejection fraction 29±16%, ischemic cardiomyopathy n=27, 67.5%, secondary prevention device placement n=22, 55%, transvenous ICD n=34, 85%, subcutaneous ICD n=6, 15%). Nonoperative management strategies included device reprogramming (n=8), addition of a class III anti-arrhythmic (n=7), or conservative therapy (n=5). Operative management included addition of a transvenous lead (n=10), addition of subcutaneous array (n=8), or change in pulse generator (n=2). A single-coil device was present in 18/20(90%) patients undergoing operative management compared to 10/20(50%) with non-operative management (P<0.05). There were no other demographic or device differences between the two groups. After 2.4±2.1 years follow up, repeat VT occurred in 22 patients (55%) including 6 patients (15%) with a repeat failed defibrillator therapy. There were no differences in the risk of recurrent failed shocks among patients with operative vs non-operative management (log rank p=0.14). Conclusions: Among a large cohort of patients with ICDs, the incidence of failed defibrillator therapy was 2.8%. With appropriate patient selection, both operative and non-operative management led to similar long-term outcomes; however, the overall incidence of repeat failed defibrillation therapy remained high at 15%, highlighting the need for continued innovation in ICD therapies and the need for rhythm control in this high-risk group.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4368552
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4368552: Management of unsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac devices

Muazzum Shah, Krit Jongnarangsin, Kelly Arps, Nathaniel Christian‐Miller et al.
Circulation
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Abstract 4368552: Management of unsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac devices

Muazzum Shah, Krit Jongnarangsin, Kelly Arps, Nathaniel Christian‐Miller, Frank Pelosi, Jackson Jeikai Liang, Ryan Cunnane, Thomas Crawford, Michael Ghannam, Rakesh Latchamsetty, Aman Chugh, Amrish Deshmukh, Frank Bogun, Hamid Ghanbari, Hakan Oral, Fred Morady, Mohammed Saeed
article en

Abstract

Background: Unsuccessful defibrillation therapy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular tachytherapies may occur due to patient and/or device related factors; appropriate management strategies after failed defibrillation therapy have been incompletely described. Objectives: To report on the management and outcomes of patients with implantable cardiac devices and unsuccessful defibrillation therapies. Methods: A single-center cohort of patients with ICDs was examined, patients with unsuccessful ICD therapies were included. Demographic and device features, and survival free from recurrent unsuccessful device therapy was examined among patients undergoing operative versus non-operative management. Results: Among 1449 patients with ICDs, 40 patients (2.8%) were identified with unsuccessful defibrillation therapies (mean age 59±15 years, ejection fraction 29±16%, ischemic cardiomyopathy n=27, 67.5%, secondary prevention device placement n=22, 55%, transvenous ICD n=34, 85%, subcutaneous ICD n=6, 15%). Nonoperative management strategies included device reprogramming (n=8), addition of a class III anti-arrhythmic (n=7), or conservative therapy (n=5). Operative management included addition of a transvenous lead (n=10), addition of subcutaneous array (n=8), or change in pulse generator (n=2). A single-coil device was present in 18/20(90%) patients undergoing operative management compared to 10/20(50%) with non-operative management (P<0.05). There were no other demographic or device differences between the two groups. After 2.4±2.1 years follow up, repeat VT occurred in 22 patients (55%) including 6 patients (15%) with a repeat failed defibrillator therapy. There were no differences in the risk of recurrent failed shocks among patients with operative vs non-operative management (log rank p=0.14). Conclusions: Among a large cohort of patients with ICDs, the incidence of failed defibrillator therapy was 2.8%. With appropriate patient selection, both operative and non-operative management led to similar long-term outcomes; however, the overall incidence of repeat failed defibrillation therapy remained high at 15%, highlighting the need for continued innovation in ICD therapies and the need for rhythm control in this high-risk group.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
University of Michigan (US), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US), Michigan United (US), Michigan Medicine (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.