Differences in Tachyarrhythmia Detection and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy by Primary or Secondary Prevention Indication in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients
Top Cited Papers
- 26 August 2004
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
- Vol. 15 (9) , 1002-1009
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03625.x
Abstract
Introduction: Although numerous trials have shown benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for either primary or secondary prevention, no trial has prospectively enrolled patients from both indications and analyzed ICD utilization between groups. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective review of MIRACLE ICD, a randomized, prospective double‐blind trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the ICD population. Both secondary prevention (N = 563) and primary prevention patients (N = 415) were enrolled. Subgroup analysis for frequency of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes and detection accuracy revealed that primary prevention patients had a significantly lower frequency of appropriate episodes (0.09 vs 0.43 episodes/month) at significantly faster cycle lengths (303 ± 54 ms vs 366 ± 71 ms, P < 0.0001). These episodes were more likely to be classified as VF by the device and thus receive shock therapy (42% by device classification vs 19% in secondary prevention, P < 0.0001). The absolute rate of inappropriate detections in the primary prevention group per month of follow‐up was lower but constituted a much higher proportion of all episodes (30% vs 14%, P < 0.0001). Most inappropriate detections in the secondary prevention group were due to rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation; most in the primary prevention patients were due to sinus tachycardia. Conclusion: Patients receiving an ICD for CRT therapy with primary prevention indications have a different clinical arrhythmia course than patients with a history of spontaneous VT/VF. This has implications for the optimal programming of ICDs. Longer‐term, prospective evaluation of these differences is warranted and should be investigated in the broader ICD patient population.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- 1111-226 Frequency and mechanisms of inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in MADIT IIJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004
- Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Events in Patients with Asymptomatic Nonsustained Ventricular Tachycardia:Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 2003
- Cardiac Resynchronization in Chronic Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection FractionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Shock Reduction Using Antitachycardia Pacing for Spontaneous Rapid Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Coronary Artery DiseaseCirculation, 2001
- Effects of Multisite Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Intraventricular Conduction DelayNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- How many people with heart failure are appropriate for biventricular resynchronization?European Heart Journal, 2000
- A Randomized Study of the Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients with Coronary Artery DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Improved Survival with an Implanted Defibrillator in Patients with Coronary Disease at High Risk for Ventricular ArrhythmiaNew England Journal of Medicine, 1996