Cargando…

ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial

BACKGROUND: The placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized. METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Semmler, Verena, Biermann, Jürgen, Haller, Bernhard, Jilek, Clemens, Sarafoff, Nikolaus, Lennerz, Carsten, Vrazic, Hrvoje, Zrenner, Bernhard, Asbach, Stefan, Kolb, Christof
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4514854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131570
_version_ 1782382826972250112
author Semmler, Verena
Biermann, Jürgen
Haller, Bernhard
Jilek, Clemens
Sarafoff, Nikolaus
Lennerz, Carsten
Vrazic, Hrvoje
Zrenner, Bernhard
Asbach, Stefan
Kolb, Christof
author_facet Semmler, Verena
Biermann, Jürgen
Haller, Bernhard
Jilek, Clemens
Sarafoff, Nikolaus
Lennerz, Carsten
Vrazic, Hrvoje
Zrenner, Bernhard
Asbach, Stefan
Kolb, Christof
author_sort Semmler, Verena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized. METHODS: A total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified “upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing”) or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after. RESULTS: All three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179). CONCLUSION: High-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4514854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45148542015-07-29 ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial Semmler, Verena Biermann, Jürgen Haller, Bernhard Jilek, Clemens Sarafoff, Nikolaus Lennerz, Carsten Vrazic, Hrvoje Zrenner, Bernhard Asbach, Stefan Kolb, Christof PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized. METHODS: A total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified “upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing”) or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after. RESULTS: All three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179). CONCLUSION: High-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086 Public Library of Science 2015-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4514854/ /pubmed/26208329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131570 Text en © 2015 Semmler et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Semmler, Verena
Biermann, Jürgen
Haller, Bernhard
Jilek, Clemens
Sarafoff, Nikolaus
Lennerz, Carsten
Vrazic, Hrvoje
Zrenner, Bernhard
Asbach, Stefan
Kolb, Christof
ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title_full ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title_fullStr ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title_full_unstemmed ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title_short ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing—The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial
title_sort icd shock, not ventricular fibrillation, causes elevation of high sensitive troponin t after defibrillation threshold testing—the prospective, randomized, multicentre tropshock-trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4514854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131570
work_keys_str_mv AT semmlerverena icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT biermannjurgen icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT hallerbernhard icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT jilekclemens icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT sarafoffnikolaus icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT lennerzcarsten icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT vrazichrvoje icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT zrennerbernhard icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT asbachstefan icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial
AT kolbchristof icdshocknotventricularfibrillationcauseselevationofhighsensitivetroponintafterdefibrillationthresholdtestingtheprospectiverandomizedmulticentretropshocktrial