Beneficial effect of Bradycardia Tachycardia Response (BTR) algorithm on VT detection in the presence of rate smoothing.

INTRODUCTION: Rate smoothing algorithms, while known to help prevent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in some patients, have been shown to result in underdetection of ventricular tachycardia (VT) due to interaction between bradycardia pacing and tachycardia detection parameters. A new algorithm named Bradycardia Tachycardia Response (BTR) has been developed in order to prevent rate smoothing-induced underdetection. The efficacy of BTR is not known. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of BTR in preventing VT underdetection due to rate smoothing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two ICD models (TELIGEN and VITALITY AVT, Boston Scientific, St. Paul, MN, USA) bearing identical rate smoothing algorithms were connected to a VT simulator. Devices were programmed similarly except for the BTR feature that exists in TELIGEN only. The detection performance of both devices was tested using varying combinations of AV delay, rate smoothing down, and upper rate limit and compared between the two models. VT underdetection (delay or nondetection) occurred during pacing in 62% of the VT episodes with VITALITY AVT. In TELIGEN, all simulated VT episodes were detected appropriately as soon as their rates exceeded the programmed VT detection rate. Detection tended to be affected by higher upper rate, longer AV delays, and more aggressive rate smoothing. CONCLUSION: The BTR algorithm effectively counteracts VT detection delay caused by the interaction of rate smoothing with VT detection parameters, thus enabling safe use of the rate smoothing feature.

Programmable multiple pacing configurations help to overcome high left ventricular pacing thresholds and avoid phrenic nerve stimulation.

BACKGROUND: High left ventricular pacing (LVP) thresholds and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) are common problems with cardiac resynchronization (CRT). Newer systems capable of multiple LVP configurations may help overcome these problems without the need for reoperation. METHODS: CRT systems capable of multiple LVP configurations (Guidant models H155 and H145) were implanted in 43 patients (study group). An additional 49 patients (control group) received CRT systems (Guidant, Medtronic, Biotronik, St. Jude Medical, various models) lacking this feature. RESULTS: Overall, acute high (> or =2.5 V/0.5 ms) LVP thresholds were encountered in 13 (30%) of the study group, and 25 (50%) of control group patients (P = 0.03). PNS was encountered in 5 (12%) of the study group and 12 (24%) of control group patients (P = 0.13). All cases of high LVP thresholds and PNS in the study group were managed by switching to a different LVP configuration, while high thresholds remained in control group patients, and PNS was managed by replacing the lead. The CS lead was successfully placed in a lateral branch in 95% of study group, compared to only 77% of control group patients (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple LVP configurations were clinically useful in a significant number of patients undergoing CRT system implantation by helping to overcome high LVP thresholds and PNS, and by providing more flexibility in placing the LV lead.