Literature DB >> 22519674

Noise, artifact, and oversensing related inappropriate ICD shock evaluation: ALTITUDE noise study.

Brian D Powell1, Samuel J Asirvatham, David L Perschbacher, Paul W Jones, Yong-Mei Cha, David A Cesario, Michael Cao, F Roosevelt Gilliam, Leslie A Saxon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approximately 12-21% of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients receive inappropriate shocks. We sought to determine the incidence and causes of noise/artifact and oversensing (NAO) resulting in ICD shocks.
METHODS: A random sample of 2,000 patients who received ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator shocks and were followed by a remote monitoring system was included. Seven electrophysiologists analyzed stored electrograms from the 5,279 shock episodes. Episodes were adjudicated as appropriate or inappropriate shocks.
RESULTS: Of the 5,248 shock episodes with complete adjudication, 1,570 (30%) were judged to be inappropriate shocks. Of these 1,570, 134 (8.5%) were a result of NAO. The 134 NAO episodes were determined to be due to external noise in 76 (57%), lead connector-related in 37 (28%), muscle noise in 11 (8%), oversensing of atrium in seven (5%), T-wave oversensing in two (2%), and other noise in one (1%). The ICD shock itself resulted in a marked decrease in the level of noise in 60 of 134 (45%) NAO episodes, and the magnitude of this effect varied with the type of NAO (58% for external noise, 35% for muscle, 27% for lead/connector, and 0% for oversensing; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in NAO likelihood based on type of lead (integrated bipolar 89/1,802 vs dedicated bipolar 9/140, P = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS: External noise and lead/connector noise were the primary causes, while T-wave oversensing was the least common cause of NAO resulting in ICD shock. Noise/artifact decreased immediately after a shock in nearly half of episodes. The specific ICD lead type did not impact the likelihood of NAO. ©2012, The Authors. Journal compilation ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22519674     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2012.03407.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  13 in total

Review 1.  Prevention of sudden cardiac death beyond the ICD: have we reached the boundary or are we just burning the surface?

Authors:  Niyada Naksuk; Christopher V DeSimone; Suraj Kapa; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2014-01-03

2.  Inappropriate shock for myopotential over-sensing in a patient with subcutaneous ICD.

Authors:  Alessandro Corzani; Matteo Ziacchi; Mauro Biffi; Igor Diemberger; Cristian Martignani; Giuseppe Boriani
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2015-02-12

3.  Inhibition of left ventricular stimulation due to left ventricular lead failure and the left ventricular T-wave protection algorithm in patient with cardiac resynchronization therapy and pacemaker dependency.

Authors:  Andrzej Ząbek; Barbara Małecka; Maciej Dębski; Krzysztof Boczar; Jacek Lelakowski
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 1.468

4.  How to get the optimal defibrillation lead parameters using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in patients with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Tariel A Atabekov; Roman E Batalov; Svetlana I Sazonova; Sergey N Krivolapov; Mikhail S Khlynin; Anna I Mishkina; Konstantin V Zavadovsky; Antonio Curnis; Sergey V Popov
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Performance of an ICD algorithm to detect lead noise and reduce inappropriate shocks.

Authors:  Scott Beau; Stephen Greer; Christopher R Ellis; Jeffrey Keeney; Shubha Asopa; Edith Arnold; Avi Fischer
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks attributed to alternating-current leak in a swimming pool.

Authors:  John N Makaryus; Julia Angert-Gilman; Mena Yacoub; Apoor Patel; Bruce Goldner
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2014-02

7.  Electromagnetic interference in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: present but rare.

Authors:  Gesa von Olshausen; Ina-Christine Rondak; Carsten Lennerz; Verena Semmler; Christian Grebmer; Tilko Reents; Sonia Ammar-Busch; Alessandra Buiatti; Felix Bourier; Isabel Deisenhofer; Christof Kolb
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 5.460

8.  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

9.  Development of ventricular fibrillation after implantation of a biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillator: what is the mechanism?

Authors:  Diego Chemello; Fernando Pivatto Júnior; Maurício Pimentel; Leandro Zimerman
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2017-06-02

10.  Follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  M P Verhagen; N van Boven; J H Ruiter; G-J P Kimman; G J Tahapary; V A Umans
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.