Is dual-chamber programming inferior to single-chamber programming in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator? Results of the INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing With AVSH in ICDs) study

The reverse mode switch algorithm: how well does it work?

BACKGROUND

The performance of the Reverse Mode Switch (RMS) algorithm, aimed at minimizing right ventricular pacing by operating in the AAI(R) mode with switch to the DDD(R) mode if atrioventricular (AV) conduction loss is detected, is not well known.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the appropriateness of the RMS episodes available from patient follow-up data at our center.

METHODS

Patients with the TELIGEN dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and the RMS algorithm activated were identified. The RMS episodes with available electrograms were analyzed and classified as appropriate (AV conduction loss) or inappropriate (non-AV conduction loss) events. Cumulative percentage of ventricular pacing and amount of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 21 patients, RMS episodes had occurred in 19 of them, with a mean of 527 episodes per month. Of the 172 RMS episodes available for analysis, 27 (16%) were classified as appropriate and 145 (84%) as inappropriate. Almost all (91%) inappropriate RMS episodes were due to PVC, and there was a positive correlation between the number of total RMS episodes per month and the number of PVCs per month (P < .0005). Considering patients with only inappropriate RMS episodes (n = 11), there was a positive correlation between the percentage of ventricular pacing and the number of RMS episodes per month (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A large majority of the RMS episodes available for analysis inappropriately triggered switch from the AAI(R) mode to the DDD(R) mode owing to PVCs. Patients with the RMS algorithm and elevated PVC burden are probably at risk of a high percentage of unnecessary right ventricular pacing.

Dynamic analysis of cardiac rhythms for discriminating atrial fibrillation from lethal ventricular arrhythmias

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), the first line of therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients, deliver appropriate shocks for termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation. A common shortcoming of ICDs is imperfect rhythm discrimination, resulting in the delivery of inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation (AF). An underexplored area for rhythm discrimination is the difference in dynamic properties between AF and VT/ventricular fibrillation. We hypothesized that the higher entropy of rapid cardiac rhythms preceding ICD shocks distinguishes AF from VT/ventricular fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients with primary prevention ICDs, 119 patients received shocks from ICDs with stored, retrievable intracardiac electrograms. Blinded adjudication revealed shocks were delivered for VT/ventricular fibrillation (62%), AF (23%), and supraventricular tachycardia (15%). Entropy estimation of only 9 ventricular intervals before ICD shocks accurately distinguished AF (receiver operating characteristic curve area, 0.98; 95% confidence intervals, 0.93-1.0) and outperformed contemporary ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

This new strategy for AF discrimination based on entropy estimation expands on simpler concepts of variability, performs well at fast heart rates, and has potential for broad clinical application.

Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention

IMPORTANCE

Randomized trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention predominantly used single-chamber devices. In clinical practice, patients often receive dual-chamber ICDs, even without clear indications for pacing. The outcomes of dual- vs single-chamber devices are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of admissions in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) ICD registry from 2006-2009 that could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service Medicare claims data. Patients were included if they received an ICD for primary prevention and did not have a documented indication for pacing.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Adjusted risks of 1-year mortality, all-cause readmission, heart failure readmission, and device-related complications within 90 days were estimated with propensity-score matching based on patient, clinician, and hospital factors.

RESULTS

Among 32,034 patients, 12,246 (38%) received a single-chamber device and 19,788 (62%) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-matched cohort, rates of complications were lower for single-chamber devices (3.51% vs 4.72%; P < .001; risk difference, -1.20 [95% CI, -1.72 to -0.69]), but device type was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality (unadjusted rate, 9.85% vs 9.77%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.07]; P = .79), 1-year all-cause hospitalization (unadjusted rate, 43.86% vs 44.83%; HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]; P = .82), or hospitalization for heart failure (unadjusted rate, 14.73% vs 15.38%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.99-1.12]; P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, the use of a dual-chamber device compared with a single-chamber device was associated with a higher risk of device-related complications and similar 1-year mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Reasons for preferentially using dual-chamber ICDs in this setting remains unclear.

Predictors of pacemaker dependence and pacemaker dependence as a predictor of mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The prevalence, predictors, and survival for the development of pacemaker dependence (PD) in patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are unknown.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 1,550 consecutive patients with ICD implantation at a single center from 1996 to 2008 with a mean of 4.2 ± 3.4 years. Patients with implant intrinsic heart rates less than 40 beats/min (n = 48) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (n = 444) were excluded leaving 1,058 patients in this study. PD was defined as an intrinsic rhythm <40 beats/min after inhibiting the pacemaker, <50 beats/min with transient symptoms of dizziness relieved by resumption of pacing and right ventricle pacing despite algorithms to promote intrinsic conduction at the 3 monthly follow-up ICD clinic visits. Multivariate regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64 ± 13 years; 79% were male with a primary indication for the ICD in 57%. PD occurred in 142 (13.4%) of patients, with a mean time to PD of 2.6 ± 1.9 years. PD was associated with a 48% increased odds for mortality versus non-PD ICD patients during the mean follow-up time of 4.2 ± 3.4 years (adjusted odds ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval 1.080-2.042]; P = 0.015). Older age, a history of atrial fibrillation, amiodarone use, and secondary prevention were the strongest predictors for the development of PD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center ICD cohort, the development of PD was not uncommon and was associated with decreased survival.

Multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: reduce inappropriate therapy (MADIT-RIT): background, rationale, and clinical protocol

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality due to cardiac arrhythmias in high-risk cardiac patients. However, inappropriate therapies caused predominantly by supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVTs) remain a significant side effect of ICD therapy despite medical treatment, affecting 8-40% of patients. The MADIT-RIT is a global, prospective, randomized, nonblinded, three-arm, multicenter clinical investigation to be performed in the Unites States, Europe, Canada, Israel and Japan, and will utilize approximately 90 centers with plan to enroll 1500 patients programmed to three treatment arms. The objective of the MADIT-RIT trial is to determine if dual-chamber ICD or CRT-D devices with high rate cutoff (MADIT-RIT-Arm B) and/or long delay in combination with detection enhancements (MADIT-RIT-Arm C) are associated with fewer patients experiencing inappropriate therapies than standard programming (MADIT-RIT-Arm A) during postimplant follow-up of patients with indication for primary prevention device therapy. This paper describes design and analytic plan for the MADIT-RIT trial.

Variation in use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the national cardiovascular data registry

BACKGROUND

Among patients without an indication for a pacemaker, current evidence is inconclusive whether a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is superior to a single-chamber ICD. The current use of dual-chamber ICDs is not well characterized.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study exploring hospital-level variation in the use of dual-chamber ICDs across the United States. Patients receiving a primary prevention ICD from 2006 through 2009 without a documented indication for a pacemaker were included. Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression was used to explore patient, health care provider, and physician factors related to the use of a dual-chamber device.

RESULTS

Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 58% of the 87,115 patients without a pacing indication among 1293 hospitals, with hospital rates ranging from 0% in 33 centers to 100% in 109 centers. In multivariate analysis, geographic region was a strong independent predictor of dual-chamber device use, ranging from 36.4% in New England (reference region) to 66.4% in the Pacific region (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% CI, 3.35-8.21). Hospital clustering was assessed using a median OR which was 3.96, meaning that 2 identical patients at different hospitals would have nearly a 4-fold difference in their chance of receiving a dual-chamber ICD.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of dual-chamber ICDs for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among patients without an indication for permanent pacing varies markedly at the hospital level in the United States. This is a clear example of how practice can vary independent of patient factors.

Comparison of pacing algorithms to avoid unnecessary ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus node syndrome: a single-centre, observational, parallel study

AIMS

Reduction of unnecessary ventricular pacing (uVP) is an essential component in the treatment strategy in any pacing population in general. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different algorithms to reduce uVP in an adult population with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) treated outside of clinical trials. Evaluation of the relationship between different types of pacing algorithms and clinical outcomes is also provided.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a single-centre, observational, parallel study, based on retrospective analysis of the Arrhythmology Cardiology Center of Armenia electronic clinical database. This study evaluated atrial pacing percentage (AP%), ventricular pacing percentage (VP%), and the incidence of atrial high rate episodes in 56 patients with SSS using three different pacing strategies: managed VP, search atrioventricular (AV), and fixed long AV. We did not find statistically significant differences in the amount of VP between the groups. Although the atrial high rate percentage (AHR%) tended to be higher in the fixed long AV group, this difference was not statistically significant. Mean VP% and AP% were similar in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, all three programmed strategies produced the same mean AP% and VP%, and were equally efficient in uVP reduction. There was no relationship between chosen algorithms and the incidence of pacemaker syndrome, hospitalizations, or change in New York Heart Association class. The percentage of AHR was not associated with pacing strategy or co-morbidities but showed borderline correlation with left atrial size.

Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator selection is associated with increased complication rates and mortality among patients enrolled in the NCDR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and complication rates in a large, real-world population.

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients enrolled in ICD efficacy trials received single-chamber devices. Although dual-chamber ICDs offer theoretical advantages over single-chamber defibrillators, the clinical superiority of dual-chamber models has not been conclusively proven, and they may increase complications.

METHODS

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was used to examine the association between baseline characteristics and device selection in 104,049 patients receiving single- and dual-chamber ICDs between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. A longitudinal cohort design was then used to determine in-hospital complication rates.

RESULTS

Dual-chamber devices were implanted in 64,489 patients (62%). Adverse events were more frequent with dual-chamber than with single-chamber device implantation (3.17% vs. 2.11%, p < 0.001), as was the rate of in-hospital mortality (0.40% vs. 0.23%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, diagnostic test data, and ICD indication, the odds of any complication (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 1.52; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.74; p < 0.001) were increased with dual-chamber versus single-chamber ICD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multicenter cohort of patients, dual-chamber ICD use was common. Dual-chamber device implantation was associated with increases in periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality compared with single-chamber defibrillator selection.

Evolutionary innovations in cardiac pacing

Cardiac pacing has played a significant role in mitigating morbidity and mortality associated with bradyarrhythmias. Throughout the years, advances made in battery reliability, lead performance, and device portability have rapidly expanded the use of cardiac pacemakers in many different disease states. Despite the benefits, there has been growing awareness of the potential deleterious effects of long-term artificial electrical stimulation including the development of ventricular dyssynchrony and atrial fibrillation. Given their association with an increased risk for heart failure and possibly death, several advances aimed at minimizing them have been made in recent years including changes in atrioventricular pacing algorithms, novel pacing mode modifications, and better identification of hemodynamically optimal pacing sites. This article reviews the advances made and the future direction of innovations in cardiac pacing.

Secondary prevention in heart failure

Although most recent investigations into sudden cardiac death prevention in heart failure patients have been focused on primary prevention, secondary indications for defibrillators and medical therapy remain vitally important in this complex patient group. Antiarrhythmic therapy is currently used primarily as adjuvant therapy to implantable defibrillators. Secondary prophylaxis defibrillator trials have shown clear benefit in preventing recurrent sudden cardiac death, despite concern over inappropriate shocks and the potential detrimental effects of appropriate shocks. Device programming for secondary prophylaxis can help ameliorate these issues. This article discusses these issues as well as the continued underuse of defibrillators in specific populations.

Atrial pacing or ventricular backup-only pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients

BACKGROUND

The need for pacing support in typical ICD patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine whether atrial pacing with ventricular backup pacing is equivalent to ventricular backup pacing only in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients.

METHODS

We randomized 1,030 patients from 84 sites with indications for ICDs, with sinus rhythm, and without symptomatic bradycardia to atrial pacing with ventricular backup at 60 beats/min (518) or ventricular backup pacing at 40 beats/min (512). The primary end points were time to death, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and heart failure-related urgent care (HFUC).

RESULTS

Follow-up was 2.4 ± 0.8 years when the trial was stopped for futility. There were 355 end point events (103 deaths, 252 HFH/HFUC) in 194 patients favoring ventricular backup pacing (event-free rate 77.7% vs. 80.3% for atrial pacing at 30 months; hazard ratio 1.14, upper confidence bound 1.59, prespecified noninferiority threshold 1.21), therefore equivalence between pacing arms was not demonstrated. Overall HFH/HFUC rates were slightly higher during atrial pacing (event-free rate 85.4% vs. 86.4% for ventricular backup pacing). Exploratory analyses revealed that the difference in HFH/HFUC rates was largely seen in patients with a PR interval ≥230 ms. There were no differences between groups for atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, quality of life, or echocardiographic measurements. Fewer patients in the atrial pacing group were reported to develop an indication for bradycardia pacing (3.7% vs. 7.3%, P = .0053).

CONCLUSION

Equivalence between atrial pacing and ventricular backup pacing only could not be demonstrated.

CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER

NCT00281099.

Difference in percentage of ventricular pacing between two algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing: results of the IDEAL RVP (Identify the Best Algorithm for Reducing Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing) study

AIMS

Managed ventricular pacing (MVP) and Search AV+ are representative dual-chamber pacing algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing (VP). This randomized, crossover study aimed to examine the difference in ability to reduce percentage of VP (%VP) between these two algorithms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Symptomatic bradyarrhythmia patients implanted with a pacemaker equipped with both algorithms (Adapta DR, Medtronic) were enrolled. The %VPs of the patients during two periods were compared: 1 month operation of either one of the two algorithms for each period. All patients were categorized into subgroups according to the atrioventricular block (AVB) status at baseline: no AVB (nAVB), first-degree AVB (1AVB), second-degree AVB (2AVB), episodic third-degree AVB (e3AVB), and persistent third-degree AVB (p3AVB). Data were available from 127 patients for the analysis. For all patient subgroups, except for p3AVB category, the median %VPs were lower during the MVP operation than those during the Search AV+ (nAVB: 0.2 vs. 0.8%, P < 0.0001; 1AVB: 2.3 vs. 27.4%, P = 0.001; 2AVB: 16.4% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.0052; e3AVB: 37.7% vs. 92.7%, P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Managed ventricular pacing algorithm, when compared with Search AV+, offers further %VP reduction in patients implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker, except for patients diagnosed with persistent loss of atrioventricular conduction.

Conventional versus biventricular pacing in heart failure and bradyarrhythmia: the COMBAT study

BACKGROUND

Worsening in clinical and cardiac status has been noted after chronic right ventricular pacing, but it is uncertain whether atriobiventricular (BiVP) is preferable to atrio-right ventricular pacing (RVP). Conventional versus Multisite Pacing for BradyArrhythmia Therapy study (COMBAT) sought to compare BiVP versus RVP in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and atrioventricular (AV) block.

METHODS AND RESULTS

COMBAT is a prospective multicenter randomized double blind crossover study. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (FC) II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, and AV block as an indication for pacing were enrolled. All patients underwent biventricular system implantation and then were randomized to receive successively (group A) RVP-BiVP-RVP, or (group B) BiVP-RVP-BiVP. At the end of each 3-month crossover period, patients were evaluated according to Quality of Life (QoL), FC, echocardiographic parameters, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and peak oxygen consumption (VO(2 max)). Sixty patients were enrolled, and the mean follow-up period was 17.5 +/- 10.7 months. There were significant improvements in QoL, FC, LVEF, and left ventricular end-systolic volume with BiVP compared with RVP. The effects of pacing mode on 6MWT and VO(2 max) were not significantly different. Death occurred more frequently with RVP.

CONCLUSION

In patients with systolic HF and AV block requiring permanent ventricular pacing, BiVP is superior to RVP and should be considered the preferred pacing mode.

Simulation of AV hysteresis pacing using an integrated dual chamber heart and pacer model

Long term right ventricular apical pacing has been known to have adverse effects in cardiac function. The AV hysteresis (AVH) is a feature existing in many dual-chamber cardiac pacemakers that aims to minimize the right ventricular pacing, but its clinical efficacy remains inconclusive due to conflicting evidence from different studies. We have recently developed a novel integrated dual-chamber heart and pacer (IDHP) model, which can simulate various interactions between intrinsic heart activity and extrinsic cardiac pacing. In this study, we use the IDHP model to simulate various atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction pathologies, and to investigate the effects of an AVH algorithm on reducing right ventricular pacing. Our results show that the efficacy of AVH is dependent on the underlying cardiac conditions. While it can preserve intrinsic conduction during minor or moderate first degree AV block, its efficacy is reduced at higher degree AV block conditions. This pilot study further supports using the IDHP model to design and evaluate more advanced pacemaker algorithms for therapeutic interventions.

Heart Rate Predicts Outcomes in an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Population

Background— Elevated heart rate (HR) is associated with adverse cardiovascular events and total mortality in the general population and in individuals with heart disease. Our hypothesis was that mean HR predicts total mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

Methods and Results— The Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing With AV Search Hysteresis in ICDs (INTRINSIC RV) trial included 1530 patients undergoing ICD implantation. After implantation of a dual-chamber ICD, patients were followed for a mean of 10.4 months. The mean HR for 1436 patients over the follow-up period was determined from device histograms. Patients were grouped into strata by mean HR, and the relationship between the primary end point and mean HR was analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel ordinal χ 2 tests. Higher intrinsic (unpaced) HR was associated with greater risk of achieving the primary end point of death or heart failure hospitalization ( P <0.001). Of patients with a mean HR <75 bpm, 5.8% died or were hospitalized for heart failure, whereas 20.9% with a mean HR >90 bpm achieved the same end point, a 3.6-fold difference ( P <0.0001). In a multivariate model with the use of Cox regression, HR was a significant predictor with a hazard ratio of 1.34 ( P =0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.50), as were age, New York Heart Association functional class, and percent right ventricular pacing, but it was independent of gender and β-blocker dosing. When considered as continuous or discrete variables grouped by 5-bpm increments, HR remained a significant predictor.

Conclusions— In this ICD population, the mean intrinsic HR was strongly associated with outcomes.

Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT00148967.

The effects of right ventricular apical pacing on ventricular function and dyssynchrony implications for therapy

Cardiac pacing is the only effective treatment for patients with sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular conduction disorders. In cardiac pacing, the endocardial pacing lead is typically positioned at the right ventricular (RV) apex. At the same time, there is increasing indirect evidence, derived from large pacing mode selection trials and observational studies, that conventional RV apical pacing may have detrimental effects on cardiac structure and left ventricular function, which are associated with the development of heart failure. These detrimental effects may be related to the abnormal electrical and mechanical activation pattern of the ventricles (or ventricular dyssynchrony) caused by RV apical pacing. Still, it remains uncertain if the deterioration of left ventricular function as noted in a proportion of patients receiving RV apical pacing is directly related to acutely induced left ventricular dyssynchrony. The upgrade from RV pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy may partially reverse the deleterious effects of RV pacing. It has even been suggested that selected patients with a conventional pacemaker indication should receive cardiac resynchronization therapy to avoid the deleterious effects. This review will provide a contemporary overview of the available evidence on the detrimental effects of RV apical pacing. Furthermore, the available alternatives for patients with a standard pacemaker indication will be discussed. In particular, the role of cardiac resynchronization therapy and alternative RV pacing sites in these patients will be reviewed.

The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) II trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether atrial pacing is a safe alternative to minimal (backup-only) ventricular pacing in defibrillator recipients with impaired ventricular function.

BACKGROUND

The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) trial demonstrated that dual chamber rate responsive pacing as compared with ventricular backup-only pacing worsens the combined end point of mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Although altered ventricular activation from right ventricular pacing was presumed to be the likely cause for these maladaptive effects, this supposition is unproven.

METHODS

In all, 600 patients with impaired ventricular function from 29 North American sites, who required an implanted defibrillator for primary or secondary prevention, with no clinical indication for pacing, were randomly assigned to atrial pacing (at 70 beats/min) versus minimal ventricular pacing (at 40 beats/min) and followed up for a mean of 2.7 years.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between pacing arms in patients' baseline characteristics, use of heart failure medications, and combined primary end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization during follow-up, with an overall incidence of 11.1%, 16.9%, and 24.6% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Similarly, the incidence of atrial fibrillation, syncope, appropriate or inappropriate shocks, and quality of life measures did not significantly differ between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of atrial pacing on event-free survival and quality of life was not substantially worse than, and was likely equivalent to, backup-only ventricular pacing. Atrial pacing may be considered a "safe alternative" when pacing is desired in defibrillator recipients, but affords no clear advantage or disadvantage over a ventricular pacing mode that minimizes pacing altogether. (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator [DAVID] Trial II; NCT00187187).