Reduction of inappropriate anti-tachycardia pacing therapies and shocks by a novel suite of detection algorithms in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: a historical comparison of a prospective database.

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival of patients at risk for ventricular arrhythmias, but inappropriate shocks occur in up to 30% of patients and have been associated with worse quality of life and prognosis. In heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), we evaluated whether a new generation of detection and discrimination algorithms reduces inappropriate shocks. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1983 Medtronic CRT-D patients (80% male, 67 ± 10 years), 1368 with standard devices (Control CRT-D) and 615 with new generation devices (New CRT-D). Expert electrophysiologists reviewed and classified the electrograms of all device-detected ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation episodes. Total follow-up was 3751 patients-years. Incidence of inappropriate shocks at 1 year was 2.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-3.5] in Control CRT-D and 0.9% (CI = 0.4-2.2) in New CRT-D (hazard ratio = 0.37, CI = 0.21-0.66, P < 0.001). In New CRT-D, inappropriate shocks were reduced by 77% [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.23, CI = 0.16-0.35, P < 0.001] and inappropriate anti-tachycardia pacing by 81% (IRR = 0.19, CI = 0.11-0.335, P < 0.001). Annual rate per 100 patient-years for appropriate VF detections was 3.0 (CI = 2.1-4.2) in New CRT-D and 3.2 (CI = 2.1-5.0) in Control CRT-D (P = 0.68), for syncope was 0.4 (CI = 0.2-0.9) in New CRT-D and 0.7 (CI = 0.5-1.0) in Control CRT-D (P = 0.266), and for death was 1.0 (CI = 0.6-1.6) in New CRT-D and 3.5 (CI = 3.0-4.1) in Control CRT-D (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Detection and discrimination algorithms used in new generation CRT-D significantly reduced inappropriate shocks when compared with standard CRT-D. This result, with no compromise on VF sensitivity or risk of syncope, has important implications for patients' quality of life and prognosis.

Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study.

PURPOSE: An optimal active-can lead configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement is important to obtain an adequate defibrillation safety margin. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the rate of the first shock success at defibrillation testing according to the type of lead implant (single vs. dual coil) and shock polarity (cathodal and anodal) in a large series of consecutive patients who received transvenous ICDs. METHODS: This was a multicenter study enrolling 469 consecutive patients. Single- versus dual-coil leads and cathodal versus anodal polarity were evaluated at defibrillation testing. In all cases, the value of the energy for the first shock was set to 20 J less than the maximum energy deliverable from the device. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients underwent defibrillation testing: 158 (34 %) had dual-coil and 311 (66 %) had single-coil lead systems configuration, 254 (54 %) received anodal shock and 215 (46 %) received cathodal shock. In 35 (7.4 %) patients, the shock was unsuccessful. No significant differences in the outcome of defibrillation testing using single- versus dual-coil lead were observed but the multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of shock failure using cathodal shock polarity (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 1.12-5.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems were associated with high rates of successful ICD implantation, and we found no significant differences in ventricular arrhythmias interruption between the two ICD lead systems configuration. Instead, anodal defibrillation was more likely to be successful than cathodal defibrillation.

ICD and neuromodulation devices: is peaceful coexistence possible?

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential cross-talk between implantable cardioverter defibrillator device (ICD) and implantable neuromodulation device (IND) during the implantation procedure and the ventricular fibrillation induction test and in daily life. METHODS: We present two cases of patients with an IND who underwent ICD implantation and one case of a patient implanted with a biventricular ICD who received an IND 6 months later. Two of these patients had a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), while the other had a sacral neuromodulator. RESULTS: No cross-talk was recorded in the patient with the sacral neuromodulator and the ICD. Temporary damage to one of the SCSs was observed after multiple ICD shocks. CONCLUSIONS: When implanted contemporarily with sacral or spinal neurostimulators, cardiac devices appear to be safe, as confirmed by the appropriate detection and interruption of arrhythmic episodes. On the other hand, neuromodulation devices could be temporarily or permanently damaged by multiple ICD discharges. It is recommended that the neurostimulator be interrogated after an ICD shock, in order to check the state of the device.

Spontaneous ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation in a patient with a positive microvolt T wave alternans test and negative electrophysiological study.

This report describes a patient with a previous myocardial infarction who presented with syncope. The patient had a positive microvolt T wave alternans test, a negative electrophysiological study, and a normal heart rate variability. In hospital, the patient had episodes of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator was implanted and during the following week it discharged appropriately.