Literature DB >> 25282033

Reduced risk for inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks with dual-chamber therapy compared with single-chamber therapy: results of the randomized OPTION study.

Christof Kolb1, Marcio Sturmer2, Peter Sick3, Sebastian Reif4, Jean Marc Davy5, Giulio Molon6, Jörg Otto Schwab7, Giuseppe Mantovani8, Dan Dan9, Carsten Lennerz10, Alberto Borri-Brunetto11, Dominique Babuty12.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The OPTION (Optimal Anti-Tachycardia Therapy in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patients Without Pacing Indications) trial sought to compare long-term rates of inappropriate shocks, mortality, and morbidity between dual-chamber and single-chamber settings in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) patients.
BACKGROUND: The use of dual-chamber ICDs potentially allows better discrimination of supraventricular arrhythmias and thereby reduces inappropriate shocks. However, it may lead to detrimental ventricular pacing.
METHODS: This prospective multicenter, single-blinded trial enrolled 462 patients with de novo primary or secondary prevention indications for ICD placement and with left ventricular ejection fractions ≤40% despite optimal tolerated pharmacotherapy. All patients received atrial leads and dual-chamber defibrillators that were randomized to be programmed either with dual-chamber or single-chamber settings. In the dual-chamber setting arm, the PARAD+ algorithm, which differentiates supraventricular from ventricular arrhythmias, and SafeR mode, to minimize ventricular pacing, were activated. In the single-chamber setting arm, the acceleration, stability, and long cycle search discrimination criteria were activated, and pacing was set to VVI 40 beats/min. Ventricular tachycardia detection was required at rates between 170 and 200 beats/min, and ventricular fibrillation detection was activated above 200 beats/min.
RESULTS: During a follow-up period of 27 months, the time to the first inappropriate shock was significantly longer in the dual-chamber setting arm (p = 0.012, log-rank test), and 4.3% of patients in the dual-chamber setting group compared with 10.3% in the single-chamber setting group experienced inappropriate shocks (p = 0.015). Rates of all-cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization were 20% for the dual-chamber setting group and 22.4% for the single-chamber setting group and satisfied the pre-defined margin for equivalence (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with dual-chamber settings for ICD discrimination combined with algorithms for minimizing ventricular pacing was associated with reduced risk for inappropriate shock compared with single-chamber settings, without increases in mortality and morbidity. (Optimal Anti-Tachycardia Therapy in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator [ICD] Patients Without Pacing Indications [OPTION]; NCT00729703).
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  defibrillation; pacing; shock; survival; tachyarrhythmias

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25282033     DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2014.05.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Heart Fail        ISSN: 2213-1779            Impact factor:   12.035


  18 in total

1.  [Optimisation of subcutaneous defibrillator programming after inappropriate shocks due to new onset of right bundle branch block].

Authors:  Claudia Schaarschmidt; Christof Kolb
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2016-12

2.  The Dx-AF study: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing VDD-ICD to VVI-ICD in detecting sub-clinical atrial fibrillation in defibrillator patients.

Authors:  Mohammed Shurrab; Amir Janmohamed; Jean-François Sarrazin; Felix Ayala-Paredes; Marcio Sturmer; Randall Williams; Satish Toal; Chris Lane; Kevin E Thorpe; Jeff S Healey; Eugene Crystal
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Single vs. dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Emily P Zeitler; Gillian D Sanders; Kavisha Singh; Ruth Ann Greenfield; Anne M Gillis; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jonathan P Piccini; Sana M Al-Khatib
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 4.  [Tachycardia detection in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators by Sorin/LivaNova : Algorithms, pearls and pitfalls].

Authors:  Christof Kolb; Rolf Ocklenburg
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2016-09-07

5.  [Inappropriate ICD therapies: All problems solved with MADIT-RIT?].

Authors:  Christof Kolb
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-04-21

Review 6.  Athletes with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

Authors:  Shiva P Ponamgi; Christopher V DeSimone; Michael J Ackerman
Journal:  Clin Sports Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.182

Review 7.  "Two for the Price of One": A Single-Lead Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System with a Floating Atrial Dipole.

Authors:  Nicole E Worden; Musab Alqasrawi; Siva M Krothapalli; Alexander Mazur
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-04-30

8.  Single-brand dual-chamber discriminators to prevent inappropriate shocks in patients implanted with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a propensity-weighted comparison of single- and dual-chamber devices.

Authors:  Sem Briongos-Figuero; Ana Sánchez; M Luisa Pérez; José B Martínez-Ferrer; Enrique García; Xavier Viñolas; Ángel Arenal; Javier Alzueta; Nuria Basterra; Aníbal Rodríguez; Ignacio Lozano; Roberto Muñoz-Aguilera
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Safety and efficacy of high-rate cutoff and long detection interval ICD programming in secondary prevention patients.

Authors:  Yusuke Hayashi; Masahiko Takagi; Jun Kakihara; Shogo Sakamoto; Atsushi Doi; Kenichi Sugioka; Akihisa Hanatani; Minoru Yoshiyama
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.037

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.