Generic ICD programming and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Generic ICD programming, where shock-reduction programming is extrapolated from trials of one manufacturer to another, may reduce non-essential ICD therapies beyond that seen in randomized trials. However, the benefits and risks are unknown. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of a standardized programming protocol, based on generic programming, across manufacturers. METHODS: We included all new ICDs in a single center (2009-2019). In 2013 a standardized programming protocol based on generic programming was introduced, incorporating high detection rates (200 bpm for primary prevention) and long detection (30/40 or equivalent in VF zone) for all patients. Patients were classified into three groups based on implant programming: pre-guideline (PS), post-guideline and guideline compliant (GC) and post-guideline but not guideline compliant (NGC). The end-points were the first occurrence of any device therapy (ATP or shock), ICD shock, syncope and all-cause mortality. Survival analysis was used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: 1003 patients were included (mean follow-up 1519 ± 1005 days). In primary prevention patients (n = 583) freedom from ICD therapy (91.5% vs. 73.6%, p < .001) or shock (94.7% vs 84.8%, p = .02) were significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without significant increase in syncope or mortality. In secondary prevention patients (n = 420) freedom from any ICD therapy or any shock were non-significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without an increase in syncope or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention patients a standardized programming protocol, incorporating generic programming, reduced the burden of ICD therapy without an increase in adverse outcomes.

Identifying patients with less potential to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of the performance of four risk scoring systems.

PURPOSE: Patients at high non-sudden cardiac death risk may gain no significant benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. A number of approaches have been proposed to identify these patients, including single clinical markers and more complex scoring systems. The aims of this study were to use the proposed scoring systems to (1) establish how many current ICD recipients may be too high risk to derive significant benefit from ICD therapy and (2) evaluate how well the scoring systems predict short-term mortality in an unselected ICD cohort. METHODS: We performed a single-centre retrospective observational study of all new ICD implants over 5 years (2009-2013). We used four published scoring systems (Bilchick, Goldenberg, Kramer and Parkash) and serum urea to identify new ICD recipients whose short-term predicted mortality risk was high. We evaluated how well the scoring systems predicted death. RESULTS: Over 5 years, there were 406 new implants (79% male, mean age 70 (60-76), 58% primary prevention). During a follow-up of 936 ± 560 days, 96 patients died. Using the scoring systems, the proportion of ICD recipients predicted to be at high short-term mortality risk were 5.9% (Bilchick), 34.7% (Goldenberg), 7.4% (Kramer), 21.4% (Parkash) and 25% (urea, cut-off of >9.28 mM). All four risk scores predicted mortality (P < 0.0001); however, none outperformed urea for the prediction of 1- or 3-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Using published scoring systems, a significant proportion of current ICD recipients are at high short-term mortality risk. Although all four scoring systems predicted mortality during follow-up, none significantly outperformed serum urea.