Failure to detect life-threatening arrhythmias in ICDs using single-chamber detection criteria.

BACKGROUND: There are anecdotal reports of sudden death despite a functional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We sought to describe scenarios leading to fatal or near-fatal outcome due to inappropriately inhibited ICD therapy in devices programmed with single-chamber detection criteria. METHODS: Programmed settings, episode lists, and intracardiac electrograms from 24 patients with a life-threatening event (n = 12) or fatal outcome (n = 12) related to failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were used to clarify the underlying scenario. RESULTS: Fifty episodes of failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were identified and categorized into six scenarios: (1) spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a rate below the detection limits, (2) misclassification of polymorphic VT (PVT) or VF as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), (3) misclassification of VT/VF as cluster of nonsustained VT episodes, (4) misclassification of monomorphic VT (MVT) as SVT, (5) inappropriate shock abortion, and (6) false termination detection. These scenarios occurred respectively 6, 9, 3, 9, 8, and 15 times. In 9/9 (100%) patients with PVT/VF classified as SVT, rate stability was active for rates ranging from 222 to 250 beats/min. MVT detected as SVT was due to the sudden onset criterion in 7/9 (78%) patients and twice a consequence of the rate stability criterion active for rates ranging from 200 to 250 beats/min. CONCLUSION: We describe six scenarios leading to failure of ventricular arrhythmia detection in a single-chamber detection setting withholding life-saving therapy. These scenarios are more likely to occur with high-rate programming and long detection times, especially if combined with rate stability and sudden onset.

Alternans of the Ventricular Electrogram in Patients with an Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence and significance of alternans of the ventricular electrogram (VEGM) in patients with an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been rarely reported. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: This report describes our observations of VEGM alternans documented in nine patients with an ICD (seven new cases and two previously published cases for comparison). RESULTS: We found seven new cases of near-field VEGM alternans and added two of our previously reported examples. Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) was diagnosed in one patient based on ICD recordings. Alternans occurred during ventricular tachycardia (VT) in eight patients. A fast sinus tachycardia could not be ruled out in one patient. Stable cycle length alternans was found in five patients. QRS alternans of the left ventricular (LV) electrogram (EGM) was recorded in all five patients who had a device for cardiac resynchronization therapy capable of sensing by the LV channel. These five cases exhibited corresponding alternans of the right ventricular (RV) EGM in three cases, none in one patient, and a questionable recording in another. Alternans of the far-field (FF) VEGM occurred simultaneously with RV EGM alternans in all four patients whose device provided an FF tracing. CONCLUSION: Ventricular alternans may be more common than realized in ICD patients with VT. The correlation of VEGM alternans with the surface electrocardiogram remains unknown. Although QRS alternans itself as an electrical pattern is generally benign, its cause may not be, as illustrated in our patient with CPVT. Furthermore, associated cycle length alternans or undersensing of the smaller alternans component may complicate ICD therapy.