[Cardiac resynchronization therapy].

Cardiac rehabilitation is no longer just used to treat patients after the manifestation of a coronary artery disease such as a myocardial infarct, after a PTCA or after a coronary bypass operation. Patients with a congenital heart disease, patients who have received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and patients with stable chronic heart failure are also suitable candidates for a multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation programme. The new Dutch guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation, published in 2004, can be helpful in identifying potential candidates for a programme. Physical training is often a component of the treatment, but psycho-social counselling and education targeted at reducing anxiety and uncertainty, accepting the heart disease and learning to cope with it, can be just as important as those aspects targeted at improving the physical condition. Cardiac rehabilitation that includes physical training is safe for patients with congenital heart disease, for patients who have undergone an ICD implantation and for patients with stable chronic heart failure, as long as the pretraining exercise test is given a guiding role in selecting the appropriate physical work load. Patients with stable chronic heart failure should continue their physical training in order to maintain its beneficial physical and psychological effects.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

PubMed2004

Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation?

The assessment of defibrillation (DFT) efficacy has long been the standard of care during defibrillator implantation. To ensure an acceptable DFT safety margin, early defibrillator systems frequently required that the shock polarity and the location, type, or number of electrodes had to be altered. Advances in defibrillator and lead technology have resulted in lower and more consistent DFT thresholds in the range of 10 J, with an infrequent requirement to modify the DFT system. Yet, one can make an argument for and against continuation of DFT testing at the time of defibrillator implantation. The goal of this paper is to address both the data that do support and the data that do not support continuation of DFT testing at the time of device implantation. Scientifically, DFT testing should be abandoned only when prospective evidence demonstrates that defibrillator implantation without testing is as safe and has the same mortality benefits as implantation with testing. The most attractive aspect of eliminating DFT efficacy testing is that more patients may have the opportunity to be treated with this life-saving therapy. Perhaps there are alternative strategies to improve accessibility to defibrillator therapy without possibly eroding its effectiveness. In the end, will lives be saved or lost if we discontinue DFT efficacy testing and lower the barriers to implantable defibrillator therapy?

Defibrillators, Implantable↗