INTRODUCTION: Local injury current (LIC) seen after induced ventricular fibrillation rescue implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock predicts heart failure progression. We sought to determine the frequency of LIC after spontaneous events in patients receiving ICD therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Near-field (NF) right ventricular (RV) EGM during 10 seconds after delivered ICD therapy was compared with baseline EGM in 420 events that occurred in 134 patients (mean age 60.8 ± 14.8, 106 [79%] male). The magnitude of elevated or depressed potential immediately after the major fast EGM deflection was defined as LIC, and its ratio to the peak-to-peak EGM amplitude was defined as relative LIC. LIC of at least 1 mV or relative LIC of at least 15% was considered significant. LIC was observed in 121 events (28.8%) and was detected more frequently after appropriate (43 [60.6%] events) and inappropriate (56 [64.4%] events) ICD shocks, as compared with appropriate (8 [9.2%] events) and inappropriate (3 [4.7%] events) antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (11 [9.9%] events) [ANOVA P < 0.0001]. Type of ICD therapy (ICD shock vs ATP) was the most significant predictor of LIC (ATP β coefficient -0.81; 95%CI-1.19 to 0.44); P < 0.0001), along with cycle length of tachycardia (β coefficient -0.0117; 95%CI -0.0167 to -0.0068, P < 0.00001) and shock energy (β coefficient 0.024; 95%CI 0.003-0.045, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks are frequently characterized by the development of LIC in patients with structural heart disease. Type of electrical ICD therapy, shock energy and cycle length of ventricular arrhythmia are important determinants of LIC.
INTRODUCTION:Local injury current (LIC) seen after induced ventricular fibrillation rescue implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock predicts heart failure progression. We sought to determine the frequency of LIC after spontaneous events in patients receiving ICD therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Near-field (NF) right ventricular (RV) EGM during 10 seconds after delivered ICD therapy was compared with baseline EGM in 420 events that occurred in 134 patients (mean age 60.8 ± 14.8, 106 [79%] male). The magnitude of elevated or depressed potential immediately after the major fast EGM deflection was defined as LIC, and its ratio to the peak-to-peak EGM amplitude was defined as relative LIC. LIC of at least 1 mV or relative LIC of at least 15% was considered significant. LIC was observed in 121 events (28.8%) and was detected more frequently after appropriate (43 [60.6%] events) and inappropriate (56 [64.4%] events) ICD shocks, as compared with appropriate (8 [9.2%] events) and inappropriate (3 [4.7%] events) antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (11 [9.9%] events) [ANOVA P < 0.0001]. Type of ICD therapy (ICD shock vs ATP) was the most significant predictor of LIC (ATP β coefficient -0.81; 95%CI-1.19 to 0.44); P < 0.0001), along with cycle length of tachycardia (β coefficient -0.0117; 95%CI -0.0167 to -0.0068, P < 0.00001) and shock energy (β coefficient 0.024; 95%CI 0.003-0.045, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks are frequently characterized by the development of LIC in patients with structural heart disease. Type of electrical ICD therapy, shock energy and cycle length of ventricular arrhythmia are important determinants of LIC.
Authors: Norman C Wang; Jonathan P Piccini; Marvin A Konstam; Aldo P Maggioni; Brian Traver; Karl Swedberg; James E Udelson; Faiez Zannad; Thomas Cook; Christopher M O'Connor; Alan B Miller; Liliana Grinfeld; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Henry Greenberg; Robert B Case; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Mary W Brown; James P Daubert; Scott McNitt; Mark L Andrews; Adam D Elkin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark S Wathen; Paul J DeGroot; Michael O Sweeney; Alice J Stark; Mary F Otterness; Wayne O Adkisson; Robert C Canby; Koroush Khalighi; Christian Machado; Donald S Rubenstein; Kent J Volosin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Deeptankar DeMazumder; Douglas E Lake; Alan Cheng; Travis J Moss; Eliseo Guallar; Robert G Weiss; Steven R Jones; Gordon F Tomaselli; J Randall Moorman Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-05-16