BACKGROUND:Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), the first line of therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients, deliver appropriate shocks for termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation. A common shortcoming of ICDs is imperfect rhythm discrimination, resulting in the delivery of inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation (AF). An underexplored area for rhythm discrimination is the difference in dynamic properties between AF and VT/ventricular fibrillation. We hypothesized that the higher entropy of rapid cardiac rhythms preceding ICD shocks distinguishes AF from VT/ventricular fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients with primary prevention ICDs, 119 patients received shocks from ICDs with stored, retrievable intracardiac electrograms. Blinded adjudication revealed shocks were delivered for VT/ventricular fibrillation (62%), AF (23%), and supraventricular tachycardia (15%). Entropy estimation of only 9 ventricular intervals before ICD shocks accurately distinguished AF (receiver operating characteristic curve area, 0.98; 95% confidence intervals, 0.93-1.0) and outperformed contemporary ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: This new strategy for AF discrimination based on entropy estimation expands on simpler concepts of variability, performs well at fast heart rates, and has potential for broad clinical application.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), the first line of therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients, deliver appropriate shocks for termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation. A common shortcoming of ICDs is imperfect rhythm discrimination, resulting in the delivery of inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation (AF). An underexplored area for rhythm discrimination is the difference in dynamic properties between AF and VT/ventricular fibrillation. We hypothesized that the higher entropy of rapid cardiac rhythms preceding ICD shocks distinguishes AF from VT/ventricular fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients with primary prevention ICDs, 119 patients received shocks from ICDs with stored, retrievable intracardiac electrograms. Blinded adjudication revealed shocks were delivered for VT/ventricular fibrillation (62%), AF (23%), and supraventricular tachycardia (15%). Entropy estimation of only 9 ventricular intervals before ICD shocks accurately distinguished AF (receiver operating characteristic curve area, 0.98; 95% confidence intervals, 0.93-1.0) and outperformed contemporary ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: This new strategy for AF discrimination based on entropy estimation expands on simpler concepts of variability, performs well at fast heart rates, and has potential for broad clinical application.
Authors: Paul A Friedman; Robyn L McClelland; William R Bamlet; Helbert Acosta; David Kessler; Thomas M Munger; Neal G Kavesh; Mark Wood; Emile Daoud; Ali Massumi; Claudio Schuger; Stephen Shorofsky; Bruce Wilkoff; Michael Glikson Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba; David S Cannom; Scott McNitt; Spencer Z Rosero; Paul Wang; Claudio Schuger; Jonathan S Steinberg; Steven L Higgins; David J Wilber; Helmut Klein; Mark L Andrews; W Jackson Hall; Arthur J Moss Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Deeptankar DeMazumder; Worawan B Limpitikul; Miguel Dorante; Swati Dey; Bhasha Mukhopadhyay; Yiyi Zhang; J Randall Moorman; Alan Cheng; Ronald D Berger; Eliseo Guallar; Steven R Jones; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Europace Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Zhaohan Xiong; Martyn P Nash; Elizabeth Cheng; Vadim V Fedorov; Martin K Stiles; Jichao Zhao Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Travis J Moss; Matthew T Clark; James Forrest Calland; Kyle B Enfield; John D Voss; Douglas E Lake; J Randall Moorman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240