Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Clinical Evidence

Customized Therapy Delivery for Improved Outcomes

Abbott DeFT Response™ technology allows physicians to customize rescue therapy to each patient’s unique cardiac physiology and changing condition.

  • One of the greatest risks associated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is failing to attain acceptable defibrillation thresholds (DFTs)
  • The growing trend of ICD implants without DFT testing presents another challenge with the lack of confirmation of an adequate safety margin
  • It is difficult to predict which patients will have a compromised safety margin1-3
  • Failure from traditional methods adds risk, time and cost to the hospital by requiring additional hardware2,4
  • By combining the ability to measure a patient’s cell depolarization time with consistent HV Lead Impedance, physicians can tailor therapy to an individual patient’s physiology

Clinical Data to Support DeFT Response Technology

  • DeFT Response technology in Abbott patients resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients with satisfactory DFTs.5
  • “Tuned” defibrillation waveforms outperform 50/50% tilt defibrillation waveforms.6



DeFT Response Technology Optimizes Shock Performance With or Without A DFT Test5*


DeFT Response technology preserved a 10 J safety margin for 100% of the Abbott patients.

17% of the fixed-tilt group of patients with competitive devices had compromised the 10 J safety margin.


Group A: Adjustable 


Group B: Fixed-tilt

Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Biotronik

14J20 (59%)24 (34%)
21J7 (20%)3 (9%)17 (24%)8 (11%)
25J1 (3%)3 (9%)7 (10%)3 (4%)
31J006 (8%)4 (6%)
35J002 (3%)0


Method: Analysis of DFT levels for 105 patients implanted with a single coil lead between Aug 2007 and Aug 2010.

  • Group A: patients with waveform tuning (Abbott)
  • Group B: patients with fixed-tilt waveform (60% Boston Sci., 34% Medtronic, 6% Biotronik)

DFT Testing: VF induced by synchronized T-wave shock or direct current pulse. If initial shock failed, second shock delivered at highest energy within 10 J safety margin of device. If unsuccessful, a subcutaneous coil implanted and DFT test repeated. Note: the RV-coil was specifically programmed as an anode in all devices.

*Applies to single coil systems.

Manuals & Technical Resources

Manuals & Technical Resources

Order Cardiovascular Products

Cardiovascular Products

Customer Service

Customer Service


  1. Leong-Sit, P., Gula, L. J., Diamantouros, P., Krahn, A. D., Skanes, A. C., Yee, R., & Klein, G. J. (2006). Effect of defibrillation testing on management during implantable cardioverterdefibrillator implantation. American Heart Journal, 152(6), 1104-1108.
  2. Russo, A. M., Sauer, W., Gerstenfeld, E. P., Hsia, H. H., Lin, D., Cooper, J. M., ... Marchlinkski, F. E. (2005). Defibrillation threshold testing: is it really necessary at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion? Heart Rhythm, 2, 456-461.
  3. Shukla, H. H., Flaker, G. C., Jayam, V., & Roberts, D. (2003). High defibrillation thresholds in transvenous biphasic implantable defibrillators: clinical predictors and prognostic implications. PACE, 26(1 Pt 1), 44-48.
  4. Cooper, J., Latacha, M., Soto, G., Garmany, R. G., Gleva, M. J., Chen, J., ... Smith, T. W. (2008). The azygos defibrillator lead for elevated defibrillation thresholds: implant technique, lead stability, and patient series. PACE, 31, 1405-1410.
  5. Gabriels, J., Budzikowski, A., & Kassotis, J. (2013). Defibrillation Waveform Duration Adjustment Increases the Proportion of Acceptable Defibrillation Thresholds in Patients Implanted with Single-Coil Defibrillation Leads. Cardiology, 124(2), 71-75.
  6. Natarajan, S., Henthorn, R., Burroughs, J., Esberg, D., Zweibel, S., Ross, T., ... Oza, A. (2007). “Tuned” Defibrillation Waveforms Outperform 50/50% Tilt Defibrillation Waveforms: A Randomized Multi-Center Study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1, S139-42.

MAT-2205144 v1.0