Electrogram analysis to detect cathodal and anodal capture in left ventricular cardiac resynchronization pacing leads.

AIMS: Our study analyzed cardiac electrograms (EGMs) to identify characteristics for detecting cathodal, anodal, or cathodal-anodal (simultaneous) capture in left ventricular (LV) quadripolar pacing leads of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients. The relationship between these EGM characteristics and the electrocardiogram (ECG) was also examined. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 54 bipolar pacing configurations across nine patients with implanted CRT devices and quadripolar leads who had undergone a 12 lead ECG optimization. Three pacing tests (cathode unipolar, anode unipolar, and bipolar) per bipolar pair were performed, examining ECG and EGM morphology changes accompanying each test and any transitions of morphology or amplitude during voltage stepdown. RESULTS: During the cathode and anode unipolar pacing tests, the EGM was biphasic (negative/positive) or monophasic (positive) in 52/53 (98%), and biphasic (positive/negative) or monophasic (negative) in 50/51 (98%), respectively. During bipolar LV capture threshold testing, 30 bipolar pairs displayed a sudden increase in EGM amplitude (median 9.4 mV, interquartile range [7-14 mV]) when transitioning from cathodal-anodal capture to cathodal or anodal capture. Ninety percent of these EGM transitions had a corresponding simultaneous change in ECG, while 10% had no ECG changes. Two patients demonstrated "quad-site" capture on their quadripolar lead with multipoint pacing enabled and cathodal-anodal capture from each stimulus. CONCLUSION: EGM characteristics during LV pacing tests can reliably detect cathodal, anodal, or cathodal-anodal capture, with greater sensitivity than 12 lead ECG changes. Integration of EGM analysis into routine CRT device follow up can be performed easily and may have implications for CRT efficacy.

Do traditional VT zones improve outcome in primary prevention ICD patients?

AIMS: We reviewed outcomes in our primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) population according to whether the device was programmed with a single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone or with two zones including a ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone in addition to a VF zone. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 137 patients with primary prevention ICDs implanted at our institution between 2004 and 2006. Device programming and events during follow-up were reviewed. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, time to first shock, and incidence of shocks. RESULTS: Eighty-seven ICDs were programmed with a single VF zone (mean >193 ± 1 beats per minute [bpm]) comprising shocks only. Fifty ICDs had two zones (mean VT zone >171 ± 2 bpm; VF zone >205 ± 2 bpm), comprising antitachycardia pacing (100%), shocks (96%), and supraventricular (SVT) discriminators (98%) . Discriminator "time out" functions were disabled. Mean follow-up was 30 ± 0.5 months and similar in both groups. All-cause mortality (12.6% and 12.0%) and time to first shock were similar. However, the two-zone group received more shocks (32.0% vs 13.8% P = 0.01). Five of 16 shocks in these patients were inappropriate for SVT rhythms. The single-zone group had no inappropriate shocks for SVTs. Eighteen of 21 appropriate shocks were for ventricular arrhythmias at rates >200 bpm (three VF, 15 VT). This suggests that primary prevention ICD patients infrequently suffer ventricular arrhythmias at rates <200 bpm and that ATP may play a role in terminating rapid VTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with two-zone devices received more shocks without any mortality benefit.