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.

Management of alert messages in the remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers: an Italian single-region study.

AIMS: The remote monitoring of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) promotes accurate supervision of the patient and device. Alert settings appear to be a crucial parameter of its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to evaluate various settings for alerts and alert message management in patients with pacemakers and ICDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively evaluated 282 patients (181 males, 101 females, mean age 72 ± 11 years) who were referred to nine electrophysiological centres in the Veneto region of Italy for a pacemaker (76 patients) or ICD (206 patients) implant in which remote monitoring was activated (Biotronik Home Monitoring®, Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). During a mean follow-up of 382 ± 261 days, we received 106,039 transmissions. In the pacemaker group, the alerts that were most frequently activated were those concerning battery exhaustion, surveying impedances, sensing and threshold measurements, as well as missing transmissions. In the ICD/ICD-cardiac resynchronization therapy group, the alerts nearly always activated were those concerning a detection setoff, battery exhaustion, critical values of impedance, or ineffective maximum energy shock. In both groups, the alarms for heart rate monitoring and supraventricular arrhythmia were activated in fewer cases at higher variability among centres. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that more attention is paid to critical technical data than to patients' clinical profiles, probably to limit an excessive flow of data into the centre. Accurate alert settings, personalized to the patients' features, are essential for easier and more effective management of patients who are followed remotely.