OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to investigate the performance of single- and dual-chamber tachyarrhythmia detection algorithms. BACKGROUND: A proposed benefit of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is improved specificity of tachyarrhythmia detection. METHODS: All ICD candidates received a dual-chamber ICD and were randomized to programmed single- or dual-chamber detection. Of 60 patients (47 male, age 58 +/- 14 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%), 29 had single-chamber and 31 had dual-chamber settings. The detection results were corrected for multiple episodes within a patient with the generalized estimating equations method. RESULTS: A total of 653 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (39 patients) were classified by the investigators; 391 episodes were ventricular tachyarrhythmia (32 patients). All episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmias were appropriately detected in both settings. In 25 patients, 262 episodes of atrial tachyarrhythmias were recorded. Detection was inappropriate for 109 atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes (42%, 18 patients). Rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias was not significantly different between both groups (p = 0.55). Episodes of atrial flutter/tachycardia were significantly more misclassified (p = 0.001). Overall, no significant difference in tachyarrhythmia detection (atrial and ventricular) between both settings was demonstrated (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The applied detection criteria in dual-chamber devices do not offer benefits in the rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Discrimination of atrial tachyarrhythmias with a stable atrioventricular relationship remains a challenge.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to investigate the performance of single- and dual-chamber tachyarrhythmia detection algorithms. BACKGROUND: A proposed benefit of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is improved specificity of tachyarrhythmia detection. METHODS: All ICD candidates received a dual-chamber ICD and were randomized to programmed single- or dual-chamber detection. Of 60 patients (47 male, age 58 +/- 14 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%), 29 had single-chamber and 31 had dual-chamber settings. The detection results were corrected for multiple episodes within a patient with the generalized estimating equations method. RESULTS: A total of 653 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (39 patients) were classified by the investigators; 391 episodes were ventricular tachyarrhythmia (32 patients). All episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmias were appropriately detected in both settings. In 25 patients, 262 episodes of atrial tachyarrhythmias were recorded. Detection was inappropriate for 109 atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes (42%, 18 patients). Rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias was not significantly different between both groups (p = 0.55). Episodes of atrial flutter/tachycardia were significantly more misclassified (p = 0.001). Overall, no significant difference in tachyarrhythmia detection (atrial and ventricular) between both settings was demonstrated (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The applied detection criteria in dual-chamber devices do not offer benefits in the rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Discrimination of atrial tachyarrhythmias with a stable atrioventricular relationship remains a challenge.
Authors: Claudio Schuger; James P Daubert; Mary W Brown; David Cannom; N A Mark Estes; W Jackson Hall; Torsten Kayser; Helmut Klein; Brian Olshansky; Keith A Power; David Wilber; Wojciech Zareba; Arthur J Moss Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Emily P Zeitler; Gillian D Sanders; Kavisha Singh; Ruth Ann Greenfield; Anne M Gillis; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jonathan P Piccini; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Europace Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Michał Lewandowski; Andrzej Przybylski; Wiesław Kuźmicz; Hanna Szwed Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Erdal Safak; Lars Eckardt; Werner Jung; Hüseyin Ince; Jochen Senges; Matthias Hochadel; Christian Perings; Stefan Spitzer; Johannes Brachmann; Karlheinz Seidl; Hans Ulrich Hink; Giuseppe D'Ancona Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Paul D Varosy; Paul A Heidenreich; Yongfei Wang; Thomas A Dewland; Jeptha P Curtis; Alan S Go; Robert T Greenlee; David J Magid; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272