Late-breaking at HRS 2026 with simultaneous publication; rapid uptake in electrophysiology community with 40+ expert posts on X and podcast discussions; addresses long-standing debate on DFT necessity; 10+ news summaries in cardiology outlets.
PRAETORIAN score-guided omission of defibrillation testing was non-inferior to testing for failed first shocks (1.7% vs 2.3%; absolute difference -0.6%, 95% CI -2.6 to 1.4; p<0.001).
RCT
Yes
Does PRAETORIAN score-guided omission of defibrillation testing prevent failed first shocks for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias compared to routine defibrillation testing in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation?
965 patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation
Omission of defibrillation (DF) testing guided by the PRAETORIAN score evaluated before discharge
Routine defibrillation (DF) testing
Failed first shock for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias (tested for non-inferiority with a 3% absolute risk margin)surrogate
Omission of defibrillation testing guided by the PRAETORIAN score is non-inferior to routine testing for first-shock efficacy in S-ICD patients, while avoiding testing-related complications.
Background: To improve survival in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) require optimal implant positioning for effective shocks. Defibrillation (DF) testing is recommended but carries serious risks. The PRAETORIAN score predicts defibrillation outcomes based on chest X-rays. The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial evaluated whether omission of DF testing guided by the PRAETORIAN score is non-inferior for first-shock efficacy. Methods: In this multinational trial, S-ICD patients from 37 centers were randomized to DF testing or no DF testing. In the No-DF testing group, the PRAETORIAN score was evaluated before discharge. The primary endpoint was failed first shock for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias, as a surrogate for defibrillation success, tested for non-inferiority with a 3% absolute risk margin. Secondary endpoints included mortality, potential DF testing-related complications, and S-ICD revisions. Results: The included 965 patients (No-DF testing, n=483;DF testing, n=482) were followed for a median of 41 months. Failed first shock for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia occurred in 1.7% of the No-DF testing group versus 2.3% of the DF testing group (–0.6%, 95% CI –2.6 to 1.4; p<0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (HR 0.9 95% CI 0.6–1.4) or arrhythmic death (HR 0.4 95% CI 0.04–3.4). Potential DF testing-related complications occurred in 1.7% in the DF testing group. Postoperative S-ICD revisions due to inadequate positioning were identical between groups (n=2 each). Conclusions: PRAETORIAN score–guided omission of DF testing- after S-ICD implantation did not increase the risk of failed first shocks for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and reduced procedural risk without increasing S-ICD revisions. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN-DFT).
“The risk-benefit ratio of routinely performing DT seems to favor not doing routine testing.”
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Reinoud E. Knops
Christelle Marquié
Peter Nordbeck
Circulation
University College London
Heidelberg University
University of Amsterdam
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Knops et al. (Sat,) conducted a rct in S-ICD patients at risk of sudden cardiac death (n=965). No defibrillation (DF) testing guided by the PRAETORIAN score vs. Defibrillation (DF) testing was evaluated on failed first shock for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias (Absolute difference -0.6%, 95% CI -2.6 to 1.4, p=<0.001). PRAETORIAN score-guided omission of defibrillation testing was non-inferior to testing for failed first shocks (1.7% vs 2.3%; absolute difference -0.6%, 95% CI -2.6 to 1.4; p<0.001).
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69edd88d4475e13dead9d59d — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.126.080638