ABSTRACT
For physicians involved in the treatment of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) the knowledge of tachycardia detection algorithms is of paramount importance. This knowledge is essential for adequate device selection during de-novo implantation, ICD replacement, and for troubleshooting during follow-up. This review describes tachycardia detection algorithms incorporated in ICDs by Sorin/LivaNova and analyses their strengths and weaknesses.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Defibrillators, Implantable , Electrocardiography/instrumentation , Tachycardia, Ventricular/diagnosis , Tachycardia, Ventricular/therapy , Therapy, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation , Artifacts , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/methods , Electrocardiography/methods , Equipment Design , Equipment Failure Analysis , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Therapy, Computer-Assisted/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) represent the treatment of choice for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death but ICD therapy is also plagued by inappropriate shocks due to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Dual-chamber (DC) ICDs are considered to exhibit an enhanced discrimination performance in comparison to single-chamber (SC) ICDs, which results in reduction of inappropriate detections in a short- to mid-term follow-up. Comparative data on long-term follow-up and especially on inappropriate shocks are limited. METHODS: The aim of the OPTION study is to assess whether an optimized treatment with DC ICDs improves patient outcome and decreases the rate of inappropriate shocks in comparison to SC ICDs. DC ICD therapy optimization is achieved by optimal customizing of antitachycardia therapy parameters, activation of discrimination algorithms, antitachycardia pacing in the slow ventricular tachycardia zone, and avoidance of right ventricular pacing with the SafeR algorithm mode. The OPTION study, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, parallel study, will randomize 450 patients on a 1:1 allocation to either an SC arm with backup pacing at VVI 40 beats per minute (bpm) or to the DC arm with SafeR pacing at 60 bpm. Patients will be followed for 27 months. Primary outcome measure is the time to first occurrence of inappropriate shock and a combined endpoint of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: The study will evaluate the relative performance of DC in comparison to SC ICDs in terms of inappropriate shock reduction and patient outcome.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Defibrillators, Implantable , Tachycardia/therapy , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial , Clinical Protocols , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/prevention & control , Humans , Patient Selection , Research Design , Single-Blind MethodABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death in athletes is more common than in the general population. Routine screening procedures are performed to identify competitors at risk. A new Holter-based parameter analyzes variation of the ventricular repolarization (TVar). The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in electrocardiogram (ECG), Echo, and Holter (H) in competitive athletes compared to a healthy control group consisting of medical students (MS). METHODS: A total of 40 athletes (19 females, Olympic team, Luxembourg) and 40 MS (22 females) were examined by means of a resting ECG, treadmill exercise (TE), echocardiogram (Echo), as well as H recordings during a routine screening visit. To analyze TVar, a 20-minute H recording at rest (sampling rate 1000 per second) was performed. Moreover, heart rate variability (HRV) as well as HR turbulence (HRT) was computed. RESULTS: No differences in demographic variables were detected. Quantification of HRV detected a significant increase in the vagal component of autonomic cardiac modulation. In contrast, no differences for HRT were found. Echo parameter demonstrated a thicker septal wall without differences of the posterior wall. TVar values were normal in range, but did differ significantly between the two groups. No correlation between TVar and echo as well as Holter parameters was detected. CONCLUSIONS: TVar was able to demonstrate significant differences in terms of alterations of ventricular activation. This might indicate an early change of myocardial repolarization representing a substrate for life-threatening arrhythmia. Larger studies on the predictive value of TVar including follow-up are necessary to confirm this preliminary finding.
