Sem Briongos-Figuero1, Ana Sánchez2, M Luisa Pérez3, José B Martínez-Ferrer4, Enrique García5, Xavier Viñolas6, Ángel Arenal7, Javier Alzueta8, Nuria Basterra9, Aníbal Rodríguez10, Ignacio Lozano11, Roberto Muñoz-Aguilera2. 1. Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Gran Vía del Este, 28030, Madrid, Spain. semdoc@hotmail.com. 2. Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Gran Vía del Este, 28030, Madrid, Spain. 3. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain. 4. Hospital Universitario de Áraba, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain. 5. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain. 6. Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 8. Hospital Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain. 9. Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 10. Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. 11. Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comparisons of the efficacy of dual- vs. single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing inappropriate shocks have had contradictory results. We investigated whether dual-chamber devices have a lower risk of inappropriate shocks and the specific role of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators. METHODS: All heart failure (HF) patients without an indication for pacing and implanted with a prophylactic ICD were recruited from the nationwide multicenter UMBRELLA registry. Arrhythmic events were collected by remote monitoring and reviewed by a committee of experts. RESULTS: Among 782 patients, single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 537 (68.7%) and dual-chamber devices in 245 (31.3%). During a mean follow-up of 52.2 ± 24.5 months, 109 inappropriate shocks were delivered in 49 patients (6.2%). In the propensity-score-matched analysis, dual-chamber ICDs were related to lower rates of inappropriate shocks as compared to single-chamber devices (0.9% vs. 11.8%, p = < 0.001, log-rank test). In multivariable Cox proportional analysis, independent predictors of inappropriate shock were history of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78, CI 1.37-5.64, p = 0.004), chronic kidney disease (HR = 6.15, CI 2.82-13.53, p < 0.001), and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 2.84, CI 1.54-5.23, p = 0.001). Among ICD settings, PR logic was the only discriminator independently related to a reduced risk of inappropriate shocks (HR = 0.18, CI 0.06-0.48, p = 0.001), along with an SVT limit enabled over 200 bpm (HR = 0.24, CI 0.11-0.51, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort of primary prevention ICD-only patients, dual-chamber devices were related to lower risk of inappropriate shocks compared to single-chamber ICDs. Besides, PR logic and SVT limit > 200 bpm emerged as protective factors.
PURPOSE: Comparisons of the efficacy of dual- vs. single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing inappropriate shocks have had contradictory results. We investigated whether dual-chamber devices have a lower risk of inappropriate shocks and the specific role of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators. METHODS: All heart failure (HF) patients without an indication for pacing and implanted with a prophylactic ICD were recruited from the nationwide multicenter UMBRELLA registry. Arrhythmic events were collected by remote monitoring and reviewed by a committee of experts. RESULTS: Among 782 patients, single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 537 (68.7%) and dual-chamber devices in 245 (31.3%). During a mean follow-up of 52.2 ± 24.5 months, 109 inappropriate shocks were delivered in 49 patients (6.2%). In the propensity-score-matched analysis, dual-chamber ICDs were related to lower rates of inappropriate shocks as compared to single-chamber devices (0.9% vs. 11.8%, p = < 0.001, log-rank test). In multivariable Cox proportional analysis, independent predictors of inappropriate shock were history of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78, CI 1.37-5.64, p = 0.004), chronic kidney disease (HR = 6.15, CI 2.82-13.53, p < 0.001), and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 2.84, CI 1.54-5.23, p = 0.001). Among ICD settings, PR logic was the only discriminator independently related to a reduced risk of inappropriate shocks (HR = 0.18, CI 0.06-0.48, p = 0.001), along with an SVT limit enabled over 200 bpm (HR = 0.24, CI 0.11-0.51, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort of primary prevention ICD-only patients, dual-chamber devices were related to lower risk of inappropriate shocks compared to single-chamber ICDs. Besides, PR logic and SVT limit > 200 bpm emerged as protective factors.
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: Brian Olshansky; John D Day; Stephen Moore; Lawrence Gering; Murray Rosenbaum; Maureen McGuire; Scott Brown; Darin R Lerew Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: B L Wilkoff; V Kühlkamp; K Volosin; K Ellenbogen; B Waldecker; S Kacet; J M Gillberg; C M DeSouza Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eleanor B Schron; Derek V Exner; Qing Yao; Louise S Jenkins; Jonathan S Steinberg; James R Cook; Steven P Kutalek; Peter L Friedman; Rosemary S Bubien; Richard L Page; Judy Powell Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-02-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dominic A M J Theuns; A Peter J Klootwijk; Dick M Goedhart; Luc J L M Jordaens Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Volker Kühlkamp; Bruce L Wilkoff; Amy B Brown; Kent J Volosin; B J Hügl; Wayne Stafford; Douglas A Cameron Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Bruce L Wilkoff; James R Cook; Andrew E Epstein; H Leon Greene; Alfred P Hallstrom; Henry Hsia; Steven P Kutalek; Arjun Sharma Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sem Briongos-Figuero; Arcadio García-Alberola; Jerónimo Rubio; José María Segura; Aníbal Rodríguez; Rafael Peinado; Javier Alzueta; José B Martínez-Ferrer; Xavier Viñolas; Joaquín Fernández de la Concha; Ignasi Anguera; María Martín; Laia Cerdá; Luisa Pérez Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 5.501