Advertisement

Which Patients with ICD May Really Benefit from DDD Pacing, and Which Won’t?

  • A. S. Montenero
  • T. Sanna
  • G. Pelargonio
  • F. Bellocci
  • P. Zecchi

Abstract

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in preventing sudden death has been shown by several trials. Nonetheless two functions need to be improved: (1) the identification of arrhythmias other than VF (supraventricular or ventricular fibrillation) in order to reduce inappropiate shocks, (2) the quality of cardiac pacing. Dual-chamber pacing should be the stimulation method of choice in patients with depressed sinus node function, or in those who are pacemaker dependent, when effective atrial pacing and sensing can be achieved. In contrast, patients with an implatable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) who also need antibradycardia pacing, can currently receive only fixed rate ventricular pacing, even though most of them have depressed sinus node function. Furthermore, positive hemodynamic effects of atrioventricular sequential pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction have been described so far [1, 2]. In fact the preservation of atrioventricular synchronization can result in a positive effect on the morbility and perhaps on the mortality of pacemaker dependent patients [1].

Keywords

Implatable Cardioverter Defibrillator Cardiac Pace Inappropriate Shock Depressed Left Ventricular Function Implatable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reiter MS, Hindat MC (1982) Hemodynamic effects of acute atrioventricular sequential pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 49: 687–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calkins H, Brinker J, Veltri EP (1990) Clinical interactions between pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 16: 666–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein AE, Wilkoff BL (1995) Pacemaker-defibrillator interactions. In: Ellenbogen KA, Kay GM, Wilkoff BL (eds) Clinical cardiac pacing. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, pp 757–769Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geiger MJ, O’Neill P, Sharma A et al (1997) Interactions between transvenous nonthoracotomy cardioverter defibrillator systems and permanent transvenous endocardial pacemakers. PACE 20 (part 1): 624–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tascon JC, Kabbani Z et al (1996) Impacto de la estimulación cardiaca electrica sobre la funcion ventricular y la historia natural de los pacientes con miocardiopatia. Rev Esp Cardiol 49 (8): 598–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CEDARS Investigators (1993) Comprehensive evaluation of defibrillators and resuscitative shocks (CEDARS) study: Does atrial fibrillation increase the incidence of inappropriate shock by implanted defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardio 121: 278A (abstr)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laverigne TH, Daubert JC et al (1997) Preliminary clinical experience with the first dual-chamber pacemaker defibrillator. PACE 20 (part 1): 625–630Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Montenero
    • 1
  • T. Sanna
    • 1
  • G. Pelargonio
    • 1
  • F. Bellocci
    • 1
  • P. Zecchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Lab. EP, Istituto di CardiologiaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations