Clinical experience with the new detection algorithms for atrial fibrillation of a defibrillator with dual chamber sensing and pacing.

INTRODUCTION: A major drawback of therapy with an implantable defibrillator is the nonspecificity of detection. Theoretically, adding atrial sensing information to a decision algorithm could improve specificity of detection. METHODS AND
RESULTS: This open-label nonrandomized study compares the detection algorithm of the Ventak AV and the Ventak Mini implantable defibrillators. The Ventak AV (n = 39) uses dual chamber detection as opposed to single chamber detection (with rate stability) in the Ventak Mini (n = 55). Programmed zone configurations, rate thresholds, and stability criteria were identical in all patients. In the Ventak AV group, 235 ventricular tachyarrhythmias were adequately detected and treated by the device. In the Mini group, 699 episodes of ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia occurred. All but six of the latter episodes were correctly identified and treated: one patient with incessant ventricular tachycardia had five episodes not terminated by the device, another episode occurred in a patient with a device/lead defect. In the Ventak AV group, 33 episodes of sinus tachycardia and 166 episodes of atrial fibrillation/flutter activated the device; inappropriate therapy was applied to 41% of atrial fibrillation/flutter episodes. In the Ventak Mini group, 226 supraventricular tachyarrhythmias activated the device, eight of which were sinus tachycardia and 218 were atrial fibrillation or flutter; of the atrial fibrillation/ flutter episodes 24% were treated inappropriately (fewer vs Ventak AV, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The new detection algorithm incorporated in the Ventak AV did not inadvertently withhold therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but at the same time the number of inappropriate therapies for atrial fibrillation was not decreased in comparison to a single chamber device.