Literature DB >> 21627705

Real world evaluation of dual-zone ICD and CRT-D programming compared to single-zone programming: the ALTITUDE REDUCES study.

F Roosevelt Gilliam1, David L Hayes, John P Boehmer, John Day, Paul A Heidenreich, Milan Seth, Paul W Jones, Kenneth M Stein, Leslie A Saxon.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate shocks and survival in patients using dual-zone programming versus single-zone programming. METHODS AND
RESULTS: For the ALTITUDE REDUCES study, patients were followed for 1.6 ± 1.1 years. The 12-month incidence of any shock was lower for dual-versus single-zone programmed detection at rates ≤170 bpm and between 170-200 bpm (P < 0.001). Appropriate shock rates at 1 year were also lower with dual-zone programming in these rate intervals (single zone 9.1%, 5.4%, P < 0.001, dual zone 6.7%, 4.7%, P < 0.02). There were no detectable differences between single- and dual-zone shock incidence at detection rates ≥ 200 bpm (P = 0.14). Inappropriate shock incidence was less with dual- versus single-zone detection at all detect rates <200 bpm, but not at rates ≥200 bpm (P < 0.001, P = 0.37). The lowest risk of appropriate and inappropriate shock was associated with dual-zone programming and detection rates ≥200 bpm (2.1%). Dual-zone detection was associated with more nonsustained and diverted therapy episodes but these patients did not have an increased risk of death compared to patients with single-zone programming. Patients programmed to low detection rate, single-zone detection and shock-only therapy also had the highest preshock mortality risk (P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Shock incidence is lowest with either single- or dual-zone detection ≥200 bpm. For detection rates <200 bpm, dual-zone programming is associated with a reduction in the incidence of total shocks, appropriate shocks, and inappropriate shocks.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21627705     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02086.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  9 in total

Review 1.  The application of Big Data in medicine: current implications and future directions.

Authors:  Christopher Austin; Fred Kusumoto
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Long-term incidence of inappropriate shocks in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in clinical practice-an underestimated complication?

Authors:  Daniel Hofer; Jan Steffel; David Hürlimann; Laurent Haegeli; Thomas F Lüscher; Firat Duru; Urs Eriksson; Nazmi Krasniqi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-11-25       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  A new single chamber implantable defibrillator with atrial sensing: a practical demonstration of sensing and ease of implantation.

Authors:  Dietmar Bänsch; Ralph Schneider; Ibrahim Akin; Cristoph A Nienaber
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Worldwide experience with a totally subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: early results from the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry.

Authors:  Pier D Lambiase; Craig Barr; Dominic A M J Theuns; Reinoud Knops; Petr Neuzil; Jens Brock Johansen; Margaret Hood; Susanne Pedersen; Stefan Kääb; Francis Murgatroyd; Helen L Reeve; Nathan Carter; Lucas Boersma
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 5.  Programming implantable cardioverter/defibrillators and outcomes.

Authors:  Fritz W Horlbeck; Joerg O Schwab
Journal:  F1000Prime Rep       Date:  2015-01-05

6.  Relation between detection rate and inappropriate shocks in single versus dual chamber cardioverter-defibrillator--an analysis from the OPTION trial.

Authors:  Christof Kolb; Marcio Sturmer; Dominique Babuty; Peter Sick; Jean Marc Davy; Giulio Molon; Jörg Otto Schwab; Giuseppe Mantovani; Andrew Wickliffe; Carsten Lennerz; Verena Semmler; Pierre-Henri Siot; Sebastian Reif
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesœs Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2016-02-01

8.  Changing place, changing future: Repositioning a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator can resolve inappropriate shocks secondary to myopotential oversensing.

Authors:  Paola Berne; Graziana Viola; Giovanni Motta; Nicola Marziliano; Valerio Carboni; Gavino Casu
Journal:  HeartRhythm Case Rep       Date:  2017-08-01

Review 9.  Telemedicine and cardiac implants: what is the benefit?

Authors:  Niraj Varma; Renato Pietro Ricci
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 29.983

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.