Enhanced Specificity of a Dual Chamber ICD Arrhythmia Detection Algorithm by Rate Stability Criteria

Algorithm-based reduction of inappropriate defibrillator shock: Results of the Inappropriate Shock Reduction wIth PARAD+ Rhythm DiScrimination-Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Study

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate shocks (IS) continue to have a major negative impact on patients implanted with defibrillators.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess IS reduction with the PARAD+ discrimination algorithm in a general population implanted for primary or secondary prevention.

METHODS

ISIS-ICD (Inappropriate Shock Reduction wIth PARAD+ Rhythm DiScrimination-Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator) was a 2-year international, interventional study in patients implanted with a dual implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or triple-chamber defibrillator (cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator [CRT-D]) featuring PARAD+. IS (shocks not delivered for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation) were independently adjudicated. The primary endpoint was percentage of IS-free patients at 24 months. Primary and worst-case analyses of annual incidence rates of patients with ≥1 IS, overall and per defibrillator type, were conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 1013 patients (80.7% male; age 67.1 ± 11.4 years; 68%/30%/2% primary/secondary/other indication) were enrolled and followed for a median of 552 days (interquartile range 354; 725). Of 993 analyzed patients programmed with PARAD+, 14 had ≥1 IS, corresponding to a percentage free from IS of 98.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.8%- 98.9%). Annual incidence rates (per 100 person-years) of patients with IS were 1.0 (95% CI 0.59-1.69) and 2.1 (95% CI 1.46-3.02) in the primary and worst-case analyses, respectively. In ICD patients, rates were 1.2 (95% CI 0.68-2.23) and 2.3 (95% CI 1.47-3.53), and in CRT-D patients 0.59 (95% CI 0.19-1.83) and 1.8 (95% CI 0.93-3.44) per 100 person-years.

CONCLUSION

The annual rate of defibrillator patients with IS using the enhanced PARAD+ discrimination algorithm alone ranged from 1.0 to 2.1 per 100 person-years in a general population implanted for primary or secondary prevention.

Does the rate of inappropriate therapy differ in implantable cardioverter–defibrillators from different manufacturers?

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this study to compare the rate of >/=1 inappropriate therapy between ICDs from two manufacturers which use different discriminatory protocols.

METHOD

One hundred sixty two patients (mean age 58 +/- 13 years, 126 male) who received ICDs between January 2001 and 2005 were included in the study. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and ICD stored data and electrograms were collected and analyzed. Immediately after implantation all the detection and discrimination criteria were activated with the nominal values in order to compare the two discriminatory protocols under the default manufacturer's settings.

RESULTS

During the follow up period of 14.3 +/- 10 months, 49 (30%) patients received >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy. The rate of >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy in manufacturer A and B ICDs was 26% (n = 29) and 41% (n = 20), respectively. Comparing the rate of >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy between the two groups by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log rank test resulted in P = 0.04.

CONCLUSION

Having all discriminatory variables activated with the nominal values, discriminatory performance differs between the two manufacturers. Further larger-scale studies are warranted to prospectively compare the performance of various available ICDs' discriminatory protocols, and define the optimum combination of discriminators in each ICD to decrease the rate of inappropriate therapy.

Prevention of Inappropriate Shocks in ICD Recipients: A Review of 10,000 Tachycardia Episodes

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of dual-chamber ICD arrhythmia classification algorithms is crucial to prevent inappropriate shocks. We report our experience from a meta-analysis of five prospective clinical studies with inclusion phases ranging between 1997 and 2003.

METHODS

Dual-chamber ICD using standard dual-chamber arrhythmia classification algorithms were implanted in 802 patients (mean age = 64 +/- 11 years, 88% men) in 74 medical centers. The ICD indication was secondary prevention in 95% of patients. Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVT) were previously documented in 26% of patients. All spontaneous tachyarrhythmic events documented by the device memories were analyzed by a adjudicating committee. The episodes lasting > 12 seconds and/or treated by the ICD were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 302 +/- 113 days, 9,690 events were reported. Mean heart rate at the time of events was 131 +/- 45 bpm (100-430). Events were classified as oversensing in 1.4%, sinus tachycardia (ST) in 66%, SVT in 13%, slow (< 150 bpm) ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 8.7%, and VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 10.3%. The sensitivity of slow VT detection was 94%, and of VT/VF detection 99.3%. The specificity of sinus rhythm/ST/SVT recognition was 94%, positive predictive value 79.3%, and negative predictive value 99.2%. A total of 1,918 episodes were treated in 330 patients: 1,472 appropriately in 213, and 446 inappropriately in 117 (15% of the overall population) patients. Only 62 episodes were inappropriately treated by shocks in 40 patients, representing 5% of the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

In this conventional ICD population, the overall specificity of standard dual-chamber arrhythmia detection settings reached 94%. This feature allows efficient detection of fast as well as slow VT events with a very low rate of inappropriate shocks.

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

BACKGROUND

The INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing with AVSH in ICDs) study tested the hypothesis that dual-chamber rate-responsive (DDDR) with atrioventricular search hysteresis (AVSH) 60-130 programming is not inferior to single-chamber (VVI)-40 programming in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with respect to all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations using an equivalence margin of 5%.

METHODS AND RESULTS

At 108 centers, 1530 patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication received a VITALITY AVT (Guidant Corporation, St. Paul, Minn) implantable cardioverter defibrillator programmed consistently to DDDR AVSH 60-130 for the first week. Of those, 988 patients with <20% right ventricular pacing at 1 week were randomized to DDDR AVSH 60-130 or to VVI-40 programming. Among those randomized, 502 were assigned to DDDR AVSH and 486 to VVI. Groups were similar with regard to coronary disease (68%), gender (21% female), and New York Heart Association functional class >I (79%). A total of 32 patients (6.4%) in the DDDR AVSH arm and 46 patients (9.5%) in the VVI arm died or were hospitalized for heart failure during a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (relative risk=0.67, P=0.072 in favor of DDDR AVSH). DDDR AVSH was not inferior to VVI programming (P<0.001). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between the DDDR AVSH arm (3.6%) and the VVI arm (5.1%; P=0.23). The mean percent right ventricular pacing in the DDDR AVSH arm was 10% (median 4%) versus 3% (median 0%) in the VVI arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In the INTRINSIC RV trial, among those randomized, DDDR AVSH was associated with similar outcomes as with VVI backup pacing.

Incidence and Clinical Relevance of Slow Ventricular Tachycardia in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients

Background— This study aims to assess the incidence and clinical relevance of slow ventricular tachycardia (VT) and the effectiveness and/or deleterious effects of antitachycardia pacing in slow VT in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.

Methods and Results— This multicenter prospective randomized study included 374 patients (326 men) without prior history of slow VT (<148 bpm) implanted with a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Patients had a 3-zone detection configuration: a slow VT zone (101 to 148 bpm), a conventional VT zone (>148 bpm), and a ventricular fibrillation zone. Patients were randomized to a treatment group (n=183) with therapy activated in the slow VT zone or a monitoring group (n=191) with no therapy in the slow VT zone. During follow-up (11 months), 449 slow VTs occurred in 114 patients (30.5% slow VT incidence); 181 VTs (54 patients) occurred in the monitoring group; 3 were readmitted to the hospital; and lightheadedness and palpitations occurred in 4 and 250 (60 patients) in the treatment group treated by antitachycardia pacing (89.8% success rate) and shock delivery (n=2). There were 10 crossovers from the monitoring to treatment group and 3 crossovers from the treatment to monitoring group ( P =0.09). Quality of life scores were not different between groups.

Conclusions— Slow VT incidence (<150 bpm) is high (30%) in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients without prior history of slow VT, has limited clinical relevance, and is efficiently and safely terminated by antitachycardia pacing.