Journal Article

16. ICD: Defibrillation Threshold Testing & Other Issues

F. Stazi, M. Cardinale, M. Mampieri, P. Grieco, D. Melissano and G.B. Del Giudice

in EP Europace

Published on behalf of European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Volume 7, issue s3, pages S26-S26
Published in print October 2005 | ISSN: 1099-5129
Published online October 2005 | e-ISSN: 1532-2092 | DOI:
16. ICD: Defibrillation Threshold Testing & Other Issues

Show Summary Details


The atrial channel of a VDD-ICD system is provided with an additional filtering/amplification stage to improve sensing performance. We compared P wave amplitude measured at implant with a conventional PSA device (unfiltered P wave) with the measure provided telemetrically by the ICD (filtered P wave). Filtered/unfiltered P wave ratio (amplifier factor) was evaluated at implant and during follow-up in 21 patients.

At implant the mean filtered P wave amplitude was significantly higher than the mean unfiltered signals (3,91 ± 0,65 mV vs 1,96 ± 1,64 mV, p<10−5). The mean P wave amplifier factor was 2,9 ± 1,8 (range 0,68-7,98). Unfiltered P waves < 1 mV are associated to amplifier factors significantly higher than those associated with P wave > 1 mV (4,46 ± 1,91 vs 1,93 ± 0,68, p<0,001).

At follow-up (176 ± 119 days), the mean P wave value was 3,76 ± 0,91 mV with no difference with value at implant (p = 0,90). Undersensing was never observed also during atrial fibrillation (4 patients).

The evaluated VDD-ICD system reliably amplifies P wave amplitudes maintaining this performance during the observed follow-up.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Cardiovascular Medicine

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.