Mobitz type I atrioventricular block: an indication for permanent pacing?

A trial design for evaluation of empiric programming of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to improve patient management

The delivery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is sophisticated and requires the programming of over 100 settings. Physicians tailor these settings with the intention of optimizing ICD therapeutic efficacy, but the usefulness of this approach has not been studied and is unknown. Empiric programming of settings such as anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) has been demonstrated to be effective, but an empiric approach to programming all VT/VF detection and therapy settings has not been studied. A single standardized empiric programming regimen was developed based on key strategies with the intention of restricting shock delivery to circumstances when it is the only effective and appropriate therapy. The EMPIRIC trial is a worldwide, multi-center, prospective, one-to-one randomized comparison of empiric to physician tailored programming for VT/VF detection and therapy in a broad group of about 900 dual chamber ICD patients. The trial will provide a better understanding of how particular programming strategies impact the quantity of shocks delivered and facilitate optimization of complex ICD programming.

Is Mobitz type I atrioventricular block benign in adults?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the need for pacing in adults with chronic Mobitz type I second degree atrioventricular block (Mobitz I).

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

District general hospital.

PATIENTS

147 subjects aged > or = 20 years (age cohorts 20-44, 45-64, 65-79, and > or = 80) with chronic Mobitz I without second degree Mobitz II or third degree (higher degree) block on entry, seen from 1968 to 1993 and followed up to 30 June 1997. Sixty four had organic heart disease. The presence of symptomatic bradycardia was defined as highly likely in 47 patients (class 1); probable in 14 (class 2); and absent in 86 (class 3).

INTERVENTIONS

Pacemakers were implanted in 90 patients for the following indications: symptoms in 74 and prophylaxis in 16.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was death, with conduction deterioration to higher degree block or symptomatic bradycardia the alternative measure.

RESULTS

Five year survival to death was reduced in unpaced patients relative to that expected for the normal population (overall mean (SD) 53.5 (6.7)% v 68.6%, p < 0.001; class 3, 54.4 (7.3)% v 70.1%, p < 0.001). Paced patients fared better than unpaced (overall (mean (SD) five year survival 76.3 (4.5)% v 53.5 (6.7)%, p = 0.0014; class 3, 87.2 (5.4)% v 54.4 (7.3)%, p = 0.020; and organic heart disease, 68.2 (7.6)% v 44.0 (9.9)%, p < or = 0.0014). There were no deaths in the < 45 cohort. Survival to first outcome (main or alternative) was further reduced to 31.7 (5.0)% in 102 patients unpaced initially and 34.2 (5.7)% in class 3. Only the 20-44 cohort and patients with sinus arrhythmia had > 50% survival.

CONCLUSION

Mobitz I block is not usually benign in patients > or = 45 years of age. Pacemaker implantation should be considered, even in the absence of symptomatic bradycardia or organic heart disease.

Prehospital discharge defibrillation testing in ICD recipients: a prospective study based on cost analysis

Prehospital discharge defibrillation testing is often performed to verify the function of newly implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). To determine whether elimination of predischarge testing could reduce costs without placing patients at additional risk, 31 patients were randomized in this prospective clinical evaluation to either receive or not receive a predischarge ICD defibrillation test. Expenses associated with postimplant care was the primary endpoint. All patients underwent induction of ventricular fibrillation after 6 months to evaluate ICD function. The groups were well matched in terms of patient characteristics, initial lead implant parameters, and defibrillation thresholds. Elimination of prehospital discharge testing resulted in a savings of $1,800/patient after 6 months, with no difference between groups in terms of ICD complication rates or unanticipated hospital admissions. Further studies are needed to better define the most appropriate time to assess defibrillation thresholds in the first year after implantation.