Advertisement

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 335–343 | Cite as

Impact of the introduction of a standardised ICD programming protocol: real-world data from a single centre

  • Nicholas Sunderland
  • Amit Kaura
  • Anthony Li
  • Ravi Kamdar
  • Ed Petzer
  • Para Dhillon
  • Francis Murgatroyd
  • Paul A. Scott
Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Randomised trials have shown that empiric ICD programming, using long detection times and high detection zones, reduces device therapy in ICD recipients. However, there is less data on its effectiveness in a “real-world” setting, especially secondary prevention patients. Our aim was to evaluate the introduction of a standardised programming protocol in a real-world setting of unselected ICD recipients.

Methods

We analysed 270 consecutive ICD recipients implanted in a single centre—135 implanted prior to protocol implementation (physician-led group) and 135 after (standardised group). The protocol included long arrhythmia detection times (30/40 or equivalent) and high rate detection zones (primary prevention lower treatment zone 200 bpm). Programming in the physician-led group was at the discretion of the implanter. The primary endpoint was time-to-any therapy (ATP or shocks). Secondary endpoints were time-to-inappropriate therapy and time-to-appropriate therapy. The safety endpoints were syncopal episodes, hospital admissions and death.

Results

At 12 months follow-up, 47 patients had received any ICD therapy (physician-led group, n = 31 vs. standardised group, n = 16). There was a 47 % risk reduction in any device therapy (p = 0.04) and an 86 % risk reduction in inappropriate therapy (p = 0.009) in the standardised compared to the physician-led group. There was a non-significant 30 % risk reduction in appropriate therapy (p = 0.32). Results were consistent across primary and secondary prevention patients. There were no significant differences in the rates of syncope, hospitalisation, and death.

Conclusions

In unselected patients in a real-world setting, introduction of a standardised programming protocol, using long detection times and high detection zones, significantly reduces the burden of ICD therapy without an increase in adverse outcomes.

Keywords

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Long detection time High detection rate Inappropriate therapy Shocks 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was sought or obtained for this research.

Conflict of interest

FDM has received Honoraria from Medtronic, St Jude, Sorin and Boston Scientific.

References

  1. 1.
    Schron EB, Exner DV, Yao Q, Jenkins LS, Steinberg JS, Cook JR, et al. Quality of life in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial: impact of therapy and influence of adverse symptoms and defibrillator shocks. Circulation. 2002;105:589–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sears SF, Todaro JF, Lewis TS, Sotile W, Conti JB. Examining the psychosocial impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a literature review. Clin Cardiol. 1999;22:481–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer A, Ousdigian KT, Johnson JW, Gillberg JM, Wilkoff BL. The impact of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rates and device programming on shocks in 106,513 ICD and CRT-D patients. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:24–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkoff BL, Williamson BD, Stern RS, Moore SL, Lu F, Lee SW, et al. Strategic programming of detection and therapy parameters in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators reduces shocks in primary prevention patients: results from the PREPARE (Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:541–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moss AJ, Schuger C, Beck CA, Brown MW, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, et al. Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2275–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gasparini M, Menozzi C, Proclemer A, Landolina M, Iacopino S, Carboni A, et al. A simplified biventricular defibrillator with fixed long detection intervals reduces implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy implanted for primary prevention: the RELEVANT [Role of long dEtection window programming in patients with LEft VentriculAr dysfunction, Non-ischemic eTiology in primary prevention treated with a biventricular ICD] study. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2758–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gasparini M, Proclemer A, Klersy C, Kloppe A, Lunati M, Ferrer JB, et al. Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309:1903–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scott PA, Silberbauer J, McDonagh TA, Murgatroyd FD. Impact of prolonged implantable cardioverter-defibrillator arrhythmia detection times on outcomes: a meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:828–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kloppe A, Proclemer A, Arenal A, Lunati M, Martìnez Ferrer JB, Hersi A, et al. Efficacy of long detection interval implantable cardioverter-defibrillator settings in secondary prevention population: data from the Avoid Delivering Therapies for Nonsustained Arrhythmias in ICD Patients III (ADVANCE III) trial. Circulation. 2014;130:308–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER. Beyond the randomized clinical trial: the role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation. 2008;118:1294–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buber J, Luria D, Gurevitz O, Bar-Lev D, Eldar M, Glikson M. Safety and efficacy of strategic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming to reduce the shock delivery burden in a primary prevention patient population. Europace. 2014;16:227–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silver MT, Sterns LD, Piccini JP, Joung B, Ching CK, Pickett RA, et al. Feedback to providers improves evidence-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and reduces shocks. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:545–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Sunderland
    • 1
  • Amit Kaura
    • 1
  • Anthony Li
    • 1
  • Ravi Kamdar
    • 1
  • Ed Petzer
    • 1
  • Para Dhillon
    • 1
  • Francis Murgatroyd
    • 1
  • Paul A. Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations