BACKGROUND:Inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias remains a significant source of morbidity in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients. OBJECTIVE: The Rhythm ID Goes Head to Head Trial (RIGHT) was designed to compare rhythm discrimination and inappropriate therapies among patients with ICDs from 2 manufacturers. METHODS:Patients with standard ICD indications were randomized to receive a Guidant VITALITY 2 with Rhythm ID or selective Medtronic pulse generators using the Enhanced PR Logic or Wavelet discrimination algorithms. A single- or dual-chamber device was implanted based on clinical indications and programmed in 2 detection zones with detection enhancements enabled for rates between 150 and 200 bpm. Algorithm performance was compared between randomization groups, stratified by single or dual chamber, for the primary end point of first inappropriate therapy (shock or antitachycardia pacing) for supraventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: There were 1962 patients enrolled and followed for 18.3 ± 9.2 months, with no difference in all-cause mortality between groups. There were 3973 treated episodes where electrograms were available and adjudicated. The primary end point of inappropriate therapy occurred in 246 of 985 VITALITY 2 patients vs 187 of 977 specific Medtronic ICD patients (hazard ratio = 1.34; confidence interval = 1.11-1.62; P = .003). Differences in inappropriate therapy were confined to single-chamber ICDs. Inappropriate shocks were more frequent in VITALITY 2 ICDs (hazard ratio = 1.63; confidence interval = 1.29-2.06; P < .001), with most therapies and performance differences occurring at slower rhythms (rates < 175 bpm). CONCLUSION: Rhythm discrimination performed better in the specific Medtronic than in VITALITY 2 ICDs evaluated, particularly for single-chamber devices. Inappropriate therapies, and differences in performance, may be reduced with the use of rate cutoff above 175 bpm. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias remains a significant source of morbidity in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients. OBJECTIVE: The Rhythm ID Goes Head to Head Trial (RIGHT) was designed to compare rhythm discrimination and inappropriate therapies among patients with ICDs from 2 manufacturers. METHODS:Patients with standard ICD indications were randomized to receive a Guidant VITALITY 2 with Rhythm ID or selective Medtronic pulse generators using the Enhanced PR Logic or Wavelet discrimination algorithms. A single- or dual-chamber device was implanted based on clinical indications and programmed in 2 detection zones with detection enhancements enabled for rates between 150 and 200 bpm. Algorithm performance was compared between randomization groups, stratified by single or dual chamber, for the primary end point of first inappropriate therapy (shock or antitachycardia pacing) for supraventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: There were 1962 patients enrolled and followed for 18.3 ± 9.2 months, with no difference in all-cause mortality between groups. There were 3973 treated episodes where electrograms were available and adjudicated. The primary end point of inappropriate therapy occurred in 246 of 985 VITALITY 2 patients vs 187 of 977 specific Medtronic ICDpatients (hazard ratio = 1.34; confidence interval = 1.11-1.62; P = .003). Differences in inappropriate therapy were confined to single-chamber ICDs. Inappropriate shocks were more frequent in VITALITY 2 ICDs (hazard ratio = 1.63; confidence interval = 1.29-2.06; P < .001), with most therapies and performance differences occurring at slower rhythms (rates < 175 bpm). CONCLUSION: Rhythm discrimination performed better in the specific Medtronic than in VITALITY 2 ICDs evaluated, particularly for single-chamber devices. Inappropriate therapies, and differences in performance, may be reduced with the use of rate cutoff above 175 bpm. Copyright Â
Authors: Larisa G Tereshchenko; Aaron McCabe; Lichy Han; Sanjoli Sur; Timothy Huang; Joseph E Marine; Alan Cheng; David D Spragg; Sunil Sinha; Hugh Calkins; Kenneth Stein; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 6.343
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
Authors: Jeong Hoon Yang; Kyeongmin Byeon; Hye Ran Yim; Jung Wae Park; Seung-Jung Park; June Huh; June Soo Kim; Young Keun On Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2012-05-26 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Vinod Sharma; Lisa D Rathman; Roy S Small; David J Whellan; Jodi Koehler; Eduardo Warman; William T Abraham Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 2.210