Jörg Otto Schwab1, Hendrik Bonnemeier2, Thomas Kleemann3, Johannes Brachmann4, Sven Fischer5, Frank Birkenhauer6, Frank Eberhardt7. 1. Cardiology, Beta Klinik, Joseph-Schumpeter-Allee 15, Bonn, 53227, Germany. schwab@betaklinik.de. 2. Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Kiel, Germany. 3. Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Kardiologie, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 4. Klinikum Coburg GmbH, II. Medizinische Klinik, Coburg, Germany. 5. Harzklinikum Dorothea Christiane Erxleben, Innere Medizin, Quedlinburg, Germany. 6. St. Jude Medical GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. 7. Evangelisches Krankenhaus Kalk gGmbH Kardiologie, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention receive inappropriate shocks. Previous studies have reported a reduction of inappropriate therapies with simple modifications of ICD detection settings, however, inclusion criteria and settings varied markedly between studies. Our aim was to investigate the effect of raising the ICD detection zone in the entire primary prevention ICD population. METHODS AND RESULTS:543 patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention were randomized to either conventional or progressive ICD programming. The detection rate was programmed at 171 bpm for ventricular tachycardia (VT) and 214 bpm for ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Conventional group and 187 bpm for VT and 240 bpm for VF in the Progressive group. 43 % of patients received single-chamber and 57 % dual-chamber detection devices (DDD-ICD 19 %; CRT-D 38 %). The primary endpoint consisted of inappropriate therapies and untreated VT/VF. The primary endpoint was reached in 35 patients (13 %) in the Conventional group and 17 patients (6 %) in the Progressive group (p = 0.004). Progressive ICD programming led to significantly fewer amount of patients with ICD therapies (26 vs. 14 %; p < 0.001) and shocks (11 vs. 5 %; p = 0.023) compared to conventional ICD programming. Sub-analyses showed the greatest reduction of inappropriate therapies and shocks in dual-chamber detection devices with progressive compared to single-chamber detection devices with conventional ICD programming (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive ICD programming reduces the number of inappropriate therapies and shocks in a broad primary prevention ICD population particularly in combination with dual-chamber detection algorithms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov ; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01217528.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention receive inappropriate shocks. Previous studies have reported a reduction of inappropriate therapies with simple modifications of ICD detection settings, however, inclusion criteria and settings varied markedly between studies. Our aim was to investigate the effect of raising the ICD detection zone in the entire primary prevention ICD population. METHODS AND RESULTS: 543 patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention were randomized to either conventional or progressive ICD programming. The detection rate was programmed at 171 bpm for ventricular tachycardia (VT) and 214 bpm for ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Conventional group and 187 bpm for VT and 240 bpm for VF in the Progressive group. 43 % of patients received single-chamber and 57 % dual-chamber detection devices (DDD-ICD 19 %; CRT-D 38 %). The primary endpoint consisted of inappropriate therapies and untreated VT/VF. The primary endpoint was reached in 35 patients (13 %) in the Conventional group and 17 patients (6 %) in the Progressive group (p = 0.004). Progressive ICD programming led to significantly fewer amount of patients with ICD therapies (26 vs. 14 %; p < 0.001) and shocks (11 vs. 5 %; p = 0.023) compared to conventional ICD programming. Sub-analyses showed the greatest reduction of inappropriate therapies and shocks in dual-chamber detection devices with progressive compared to single-chamber detection devices with conventional ICD programming (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive ICD programming reduces the number of inappropriate therapies and shocks in a broad primary prevention ICD population particularly in combination with dual-chamber detection algorithms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov ; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01217528.
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: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: B Healy; L Campeau; R Gray; J A Herd; B Hoogwerf; D Hunninghake; G Knatterud; W Stewart; C White Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-04-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kristina Wasmer; Julia Köbe; Dietrich Andresen; Ralf Zahn; Stefan G Spitzer; Joachim Jehle; Johannes Brachmann; Christoph Stellbrink; Eimo Martens; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Helmut Klein; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 5.460
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: Bruce L Wilkoff; Brian D Williamson; Richard S Stern; Stephen L Moore; Fei Lu; Sung W Lee; Ulrika M Birgersdotter-Green; Mark S Wathen; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Brooke M Heubner; Mark L Brown; Keith K Holloman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Johann Christoph Geller; Armin Wöhrle; Mathias Busch; Albrecht Elsässer; Thomas Kleemann; Frank Birkenhauer; Peter Bramlage; Christian Veltmann Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Markus Bettin; Dirk Dechering; Gerrit Frommeyer; Robert Larbig; Andreas Löher; Florian Reinke; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Leon Dinshaw; Julia Münch; Jannis Dickow; Susanne Lezius; Stephan Willems; Boris A Hoffmann; Monica Patten Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-09-30 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Robert T Greenlee; Alan S Go; Pamela N Peterson; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Charles Gaber; Romel Garcia-Montilla; Karen A Glenn; Nigel Gupta; Jerry H Gurwitz; Stephen C Hammill; John J Hayes; Alan Kadish; David J Magid; David D McManus; Deborah Multerer; J David Powers; Liza M Reifler; Kristi Reynolds; Claudio Schuger; Param P Sharma; David H Smith; Mary Suits; Sue Hee Sung; Paul D Varosy; Humberto J Vidaillet; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 5.501