Literature DB >> 25150135

Analysis of different device-based intrathoracic impedance vectors for detection of heart failure events (from the Detect Fluid Early from Intrathoracic Impedance Monitoring study).

E Kevin Heist1, John M Herre2, Philip F Binkley3, Adrian B Van Bakel4, James G Porterfield5, Linda M Porterfield5, Fujian Qu6, Melanie Turkel6, Behzad B Pavri7.   

Abstract

Detect Fluid Early from Intrathoracic Impedance Monitoring (DEFEAT-PE) is a prospective, multicenter study of multiple intrathoracic impedance vectors to detect pulmonary congestion (PC) events. Changes in intrathoracic impedance between the right ventricular (RV) coil and device can (RVcoil→Can) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs (CRT-Ds) are used clinically for the detection of PC events, but other impedance vectors and algorithms have not been studied prospectively. An initial 75-patient study was used to derive optimal impedance vectors to detect PC events, with 2 vector combinations selected for prospective analysis in DEFEAT-PE (ICD vectors: RVring→Can + RVcoil→Can, detection threshold 13 days; CRT-D vectors: left ventricular ring→Can + RVcoil→Can, detection threshold 14 days). Impedance changes were considered true positive if detected <30 days before an adjudicated PC event. One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled (80 with ICDs and 82 with CRT-Ds), all with ≥1 previous PC event. One hundred forty-four patients provided study data, with 214 patient-years of follow-up and 139 PC events. Sensitivity for PC events of the prespecified algorithms was as follows: ICD: sensitivity 32.3%, false-positive rate 1.28 per patient-year; CRT-D: sensitivity 32.4%, false-positive rate 1.66 per patient-year. An alternative algorithm, ultimately approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (RVring→Can + RVcoil→Can, detection threshold 14 days), resulted in (for all patients) sensitivity of 21.6% and a false-positive rate of 0.9 per patient-year. The CRT-D thoracic impedance vector algorithm selected in the derivation study was not superior to the ICD algorithm RVring→Can + RVcoil→Can when studied prospectively. In conclusion, to achieve an acceptably low false-positive rate, the intrathoracic impedance algorithms studied in DEFEAT-PE resulted in low sensitivity for the prediction of heart failure events.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25150135     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.07.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  10 in total

Review 1.  Electrophysiology devices and the regulatory approval process within the U.S. FDA and abroad.

Authors:  Kimberly A Selzman; Hetal Patel; Kenneth Cavanaugh
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy update: evolving indications, expanding benefit?

Authors:  C Butcher; Y Mareev; V Markides; M Mason; T Wong; J G F Cleland
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Intracardiac impedance after cardiac resynchronization therapy is a novel predictor for worsening of heart failure.

Authors:  Hitoshi Suzuki; Minoru Nodera; Masashi Kamioka; Takashi Kaneshiro; Yoshiyuki Kamiyama; Yasuchika Takeishi
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Is There a Future for Remote Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Management?

Authors:  Haran Burri
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2017-08

Review 5.  Wearable technology for cardiology: An update and framework for the future.

Authors:  Joshua M Pevnick; Kade Birkeland; Raymond Zimmer; Yaron Elad; Ilan Kedan
Journal:  Trends Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 6.677

6.  Early Indication of Decompensated Heart Failure in Patients on Home-Telemonitoring: A Comparison of Prediction Algorithms Based on Daily Weight and Noninvasive Transthoracic Bio-impedance.

Authors:  Illapha Cuba Gyllensten; Alberto G Bonomi; Kevin M Goode; Harald Reiter; Joerg Habetha; Oliver Amft; John Gf Cleland
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2016-02-18

7.  Bioimpedance Alerts from Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices: Observational Study of Diagnostic Relevance and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Christophe Jp Smeets; Julie Vranken; Jo Van der Auwera; Frederik H Verbrugge; Wilfried Mullens; Matthias Dupont; Lars Grieten; Hélène De Cannière; Dorien Lanssens; Thijs Vandenberk; Valerie Storms; Inge M Thijs; Pieter M Vandervoort
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance Spectroscopy to Monitor Fluid Status in Heart Failure.

Authors:  Matthias Daniel Zink; Fabienne König; Sören Weyer; Klaus Willmes; Steffen Leonhardt; Nikolaus Marx; Andreas Napp
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Assessment and prevalence of pulmonary oedema in contemporary acute heart failure trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elke Platz; Pardeep S Jhund; Ross T Campbell; John J McMurray
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 15.534

10.  Haemodynamic monitoring of cardiac status using heart sounds from an implanted cardiac device.

Authors:  Pramodsingh H Thakur; Qi An; Lynne Swanson; Yi Zhang; Roy S Gardner
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2017-07-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.