©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Cardiol. Feb 26, 2017; 9(2): 167-173
Published online Feb 26, 2017. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v9.i2.167
Published online Feb 26, 2017. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v9.i2.167
Table 2 Characteristics of patients with failed intra-operative safety margin test
| n | Age at time of implantation (years) | Sex (m/f) | Indication for ICD implantation | LVEF (%) | Primary vs secondary ICD indication | Further management after failed initial SMT |
| 1 | 46 | m | LAD stenosed | 30 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 2 | 45 | w | oCM | 15 | pp | PDT OK |
| 3 | 74 | w | oCM | 36 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 4 | 41 | m | cmpl revasc | 39 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 5 | 54 | w | DCM | 10 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 6 | 25 | m | oCM | 20 | sp | Subcutaneous array |
| 7 | 68 | m | DCM | 35 | sp | Subcutaneous array |
| 8 | 69 | m | RCA occluded | 31 | sp | PDT OK |
| 9 | 73 | m | oCM | 30 | pp | PDT OK |
| 10 | 37 | m | TGV surgery | 30 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 11 | 69 | m | DCM | 20 | pp | none |
| 12 | 46 | m | LAD stenosed | 30 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 13 | 45 | w | DCM | 15 | pp | PDT OK |
| 14 | 74 | w | DCM | 36 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 15 | 41 | m | cmpl revasc | 39 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 16 | 54 | w | DCM | 10 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 17 | 25 | m | DCM | 20 | sp | Subcutaneous array |
| 18 | 68 | m | DCM | 35 | sp | Subcutaneous array |
| 19 | 69 | m | RCA occluded | 31 | sp | PDT OK |
| 20 | 73 | m | DCM | 30 | pp | PDT OK |
| 21 | 37 | m | vs D surgery | 30 | pp | Subcutaneous array |
| 22 | 69 | m | DCM | 20 | pp | None |
- Citation: Roos M, Geller JC, Ohlow MA. Critical analysis of ineffective post implantation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-testing. World J Cardiol 2017; 9(2): 167-173
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8462/full/v9/i2/167.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v9.i2.167