Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
S-ICD screening revisited: do passing vectors sometimes fail?
Wiles, Benedict M; Morgan, John M; Allavatam, Venugopal; ElRefai, Mohamed; Roberts, Paul R.
Afiliación
  • Wiles BM; Cardiac Rhythm Management Research Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
  • Morgan JM; Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
  • Allavatam V; Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
  • ElRefai M; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Roberts PR; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol ; 45(2): 182-187, 2022 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34881431
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Pre-implant ECG screening is performed to ensure that S-ICD recipients have at least one suitable sensing vector, yet cardiac over-sensing remains the commonest cause of inappropriate shock therapy in the S-ICD population. One explanation would be the presence of dynamic variations in ECG morphology that result in variations in vector eligibility.

METHODS:

Adult ICD patients had a 24-h ambulatory ECG performed using a digital Holter positioned to record all three S-ICD vectors. Using an S-ICD simulator, automated screening was then performed at one-minute intervals. In vectors with a mean vector score > 100 (the accepted value for a passing vector when screened on a single occasion), the percentage of all screening assessments that passed, eligible vector time (EVT), was calculated. EVT was compared statistically to QRS duration, corrected time to peak T (pTc) and mean vector score.

RESULTS:

Ambulatory monitoring was performed in 14 patients (mean age 63.7 ± 5.2 years, 71.4% male) with 42 vectors analysed. In 19 vectors the mean vector score was > 100. Within this "passing" cohort EVT varied between 42.7% and 100%. In 7/19 (37%) the EVT was <75%. A negative correlation was found between QRS duration and EVT (Pearson correlation -.60, p = .007). No correlation was found between EVT and mean vector score or pTc.

CONCLUSION:

Vector eligibility is dynamic. When "passing" vectors are subjected to repeated screening, 37% are found to be ineligible, more than a quarter of the time. Further investigation is required to determine the clinical significance of these findings.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tamizaje Masivo / Electrocardiografía Ambulatoria / Muerte Súbita Cardíaca / Desfibriladores Implantables Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tamizaje Masivo / Electrocardiografía Ambulatoria / Muerte Súbita Cardíaca / Desfibriladores Implantables Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido