Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 45:468, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.011
© 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Reply

Charles Swerdlow, MD

Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, 8635 West Third Street, Suite 1190 W, Los Angeles, CA 90048

(Email: swerdlow{at}ucla.edu).


I thank Dr. Kantharia for his interest in our recent paper (1). Identifying the optimal patient-specific implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system and its programming, without the need for either ventricular fibrillation (VF) or shocks, is a major research goal. The patients reported by Dr. Kantharia both emphasize the importance of this goal and illustrate poignantly that it remains beyond our grasp.

The first case highlights the unmet need of developing effective treatment for life-threatening, post-VF electromechanical dysfunction (EMD) (2,3). Paradoxically, defibrillation testing may have saved this patient's life: If VF had occurred as an outpatient, either defibrillation would have failed or the postshock rhythm would have been lethal EMD. To the best of my knowledge, fatal postshock EMD has not been reported after an inappropriate shock. Thus, postshock EMD probably is caused by a combination of VF and shocks, often prolonged VF and multiple shocks.

The second patient died from failed defibrillation with an untested ICD system. This case illuminates the need for a shockless method of assessing ventricular defibrillation efficacy, or at least a method that minimizes the risk of thromboembolism from atrial cardioversion. One consideration is continuous rapid atrial stimulation during ventricular defibrillation or vulnerability testing.


    References
 Top
 References
 
1. Swerdlow CD. Reappraisal of implant testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:92-94.[Free Full Text]

2. Mitchell LB, Pineda EA, Titus JL, Bartosch PM, Benditt DG. Sudden death in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the importance of post-shock electromechanical dissociation J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1323-1328.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Rosborough J, Deno C. Electrical therapy for pulseless electrical activity (abstr) Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000;23:591.


Related Article

Defibrillation thresholds testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at implantation
Bharat K. Kantharia
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005 45: 468. [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swerdlow, C.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement