Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Evoked Response Sensing Methods for Automatic Capture Detection in the Left Ventricle

Acute performance of a right ventricular automatic pacing threshold algorithm for implantable defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

Automatic pacing threshold (AT) testing with threshold trending and output adjustment may simplify follow-up and improve cardiac rhythm device longevity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new right ventricular (RV) AT algorithm for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) using RVcoil to Can evoked response sensing.

METHOD

Patients undergoing ICD, with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy device, implant, replacement, or upgrade were enrolled. A pulse generator emulator (Can) was temporarily placed in the device pocket. An external pacing system (Boston Scientific, St. Paul, MN, USA) with customized software was used for performing threshold tests and data acquisition. RV manual threshold and up to four AT tests using various pacing parameters were conducted. The threshold measurement and the capture detection performance of the RV AT tests were evaluated through comparison with visual examination of surface electrocardiogram.

RESULTS

Data from 43 patients were analyzed. A total of 158 AT tests were performed, in which 144 AT tests (91.1%) measured correct threshold values. No consecutive asystolic noncaptured beats were observed in any AT tests, and none of the AT tests resulted in incorrectly low threshold measurements. The difference between manual and AT measurements was -0.05 ± 0.43 V. The accuracy for detecting capture and noncaptured beats were 95% and 99%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The RVcoil to Can evoked response sensing based RV AT algorithm can reliably measure pacing threshold for ICDs, including CRT-Ds.

Longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: implications for clinical practice and health care systems

AIMS

Comparative studies on the longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) among different manufacturers have never been reported. Longevity of ICD devices implanted from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002 was prospectively investigated according to their type and manufacturer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Longevity of single-chamber (SC), double-chamber (DC), and biventricular (CRT-D) ICDs from Medtronic (MDT), Guidant (GDT), and St Jude Medical (SJM) was measured in all the patients who required device replacement. The observation follow-up ended on 31 December 2007; patients who died prematurely or were transplanted before battery exhaustion were excluded from the analysis. Factors associated with longevity (number of delivered shocks, pacing activity) were researched. One hundred and fifty-three patients received an ICD in the abovementioned period. Six underwent heart transplantation, and 23 died before device replacement; 80 had an SC device, 59 had DC device, and 14 had CRT-D device. Longevity of MDT was superior to GDT and SJM, replacement rates being, respectively, 42%, 95.3%, and 97.2%. Only MDT manufacturers and SC type were associated with greater ICD longevity. Longevity had an impact on the cost/month of treatment of replaced ICDs.

CONCLUSION

Battery longevity is significantly different among manufacturers. ICD cost is strictly dependent on device longevity, whereas device up-front cost is of limited clinical meaning. Appropriate assessment of cost-effectiveness should be based on ICD longevity in the real-life scenario.