Advertisement

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

  • Arash Arya
  • Majid Haghjoo
  • Zahra Emkanjoo
  • Mohammad Reza Dehghani
  • Mohammad Ali Sadr-Ameli
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator Inappropriate therapy Discriminatory protocol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Theuns, D. A., Klootwijk, P. J., Simoons, M. L., & Jordanes, L. J. (2005). Clinical variables predicting inappropriate use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillator in patients with coronary heart disease or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. American Journal of Cardiology, 95, 271–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nanthakumar, K., Dorian, P., Paquette, M., Greene, M., Edwards, J., Heng, D., et al. (2003). Is inappropriate defibrillator shock therapy predictable? Journal of Interventional Cardiology and Electrophysiology, 8, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorian, P., Philippon, F., Thibault, B., Kimber, S., Sterns, L., Greene, M., et al. (2004). Randomized controlled study of detection enhancements versus rate-only detection to prevent inappropriate therapy in a dual chamber implantable cardioverter–defibrillator. Heart Rhythm, 1, 540–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kouakam, C., Kacet, S., Hazard, J. R., Ferraci, A., Mansour, H., Defaye, P., et al. (2004). Performance of a dual-chamber implantable defibrillator algorithm for discrimination of ventricular from supraventricular tachycardia. Europace, 6, 32–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sinha, A. M., Stellbrink, C., Schuchert, A., Mox, B., Jordaens, L., Lamaison, D., et al. (2004). Clinical experience with a new detection algorithm for differentiation of supraventricular from ventricular tachycardia in dual chamber defibrillators. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 15, 646–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glikson, M., Swerdlow, C. D., Gurevitz, O. T., Daoud, E., Shivkumar, K., Wilkoff, B., et al. (2005). Optimal combination of discriminators for differentiating ventricular from supraventricular tachycardia by dual-chamber defibrillators. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 16, 732–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swerdlow, C. D. (2001). Supraventricular tachycardia–ventricular tachycardia discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: state-of-the-art review. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 12, 606–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swerdlow, C. D., Brown, M. L., Lurie, K., Zhang, J., Wood, N. M., Olson, W. H., et al. (2002). Discrimination of ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia by a downloaded wavelet-transform morphology algorithm: a paradigm for development of implantable cardioverter defibrillator detection algorithms. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 13, 432–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mletzko, R., Anselme, F., Klug, D., Schoels, W., Bowes, R., Iscolo, N., et al. (2004). Enhanced specificity of a dual chamber ICD arrhythmia detection algorithm by rate stability criteria. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 27, 1113–1119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stadler, R. W., Gunderson, B. D., & Gillberg, J. M. (2003). An adaptive interval-based algorithm for withholding ICD therapy during sinus tachycardia. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 26, 1189–1201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swerdlow, C. D. (2001). Supraventricular tachycardia–ventricular tachycardia discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: state-of-the-art review. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 12, 606–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deisenhofer, I., Kolb, C., Ndrepepa, G., Schreieck, J., Karch, M., Schmieder, S., et al. (2001). Do current dual chamber cardioverter defibrillators have advantages over conventional single chamber cardioverter defibrillators in reducing inappropriate therapies? A randomized, prospective study. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 12, 134–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkman, B. & Wellens, H. J. (2000). Importance of the atrial channel for ventricular arrhythmia therapy in the dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 11, 1309–1319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkoff, B. L., Ousdigian, K. T., Sterns, L. D., Wang, Z. J., Wilson, R. D., Morgan, J. M., et al. (2006). A comparison of empiric to physician-tailored programming of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators: Results from the prospective randomized multicenter EMPIRIC Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiologists, 48, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berger, R. D., Lerew, D. R., Smith, J. M., Pulling, C., & Gold, M. R. (2006). The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT): Design of a randomized trial comparing competitive rhythm discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 17, 749–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arash Arya
    • 1
  • Majid Haghjoo
    • 2
  • Zahra Emkanjoo
    • 2
  • Mohammad Reza Dehghani
    • 2
  • Mohammad Ali Sadr-Ameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ElectrophysiologyUniversity of Leipzig, Heart CenterLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Pacemaker and Electrophysiology, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research CenterIran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations