Underdetection of ventricular tachycardia by algorithms to enhance specificity in a tiered-therapy cardioverter-defibrillator

Failure to Treat Ventricular Tachycardia or Ventricular Fibrillation by Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Normally-functioning implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with intact lead systems occasionally fail to deliver therapy for ventricular tachycardia/ fibrillation (VT/VF) or deliver it only after clinically-significant delays ("failure-to-treat").

OBJECTIVE

To investigate ICD failure-to-treat VT/VF in a large patient cohort.

METHODS

We searched the United States (US) Food and Drug Association's online Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2019 to 2023 for manufacturer-verified reports in which normally-functioning ICDs failed to treat VT/VF.

RESULTS

We identified 854 reports classified as deaths (n=96, 11.2%), injuries (n=585, 68.5%), or malfunctions (n=173, 20.4%) for normally-functioning ICDs. The most common causes were misclassification as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) or atrial fibrillation (AF) (54.8%), undersensing (21.1%), and failure to satisfy programmed rate/duration criteria (8.7%). Most events caused by misclassification as SVT/AF (89.5%) and failure to satisfy rate/duration criteria (70.3%) were VT; most caused by undersensing were either VF (54.4%) or not specified as VT or VF (19.4%). Undersensing caused 65.6% of deaths, although it comprised only 21.1% of reports. In the United States, the number of reports increased faster than that of ICD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest reported series of failure-to-treat VT/VF by normally-functioning ICDs, the most common cause was misclassification of VT as SVT/AF; the most common cause of death was undersensing of VF. Although relatively few patients with normally-functioning ICDs experience failure-to-treat VT/VF, the absolute number of verified MAUDE reports suggests that more work is needed to quantify the magnitude of the problem, identify root causes, and develop solutions.

Sensors for rate-adaptive pacing: How they work, strengths, and limitations

Chronotropic incompetence is the inability of the sinus node to increase heart rate commensurate with increased metabolic demand. Cardiac pacing alone may be insufficient to address exercise intolerance, fatigue, dyspnea on exertion, and other symptoms of chronotropic incompetence. Rate-responsive (adaptive) pacing employs sensors to detect physical or physiological indices and mimic the response of the normal sinus node. This review describes the development, strengths, and limitations of a variety of sensors that have been employed to address chronotropic incompetence. A mini-tutorial on programming rate-adaptive parameters is included along with emphasis that patients' lifestyles and underlying medical conditions require careful consideration. In addition, special sensor applications used to respond prophylactically to physiologic signals are detailed and an in-depth discussion of sensors as a potential aid in heart failure management is provided.

Failure to detect life-threatening arrhythmias in ICDs using single-chamber detection criteria

BACKGROUND

There are anecdotal reports of sudden death despite a functional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We sought to describe scenarios leading to fatal or near-fatal outcome due to inappropriately inhibited ICD therapy in devices programmed with single-chamber detection criteria.

METHODS

Programmed settings, episode lists, and intracardiac electrograms from 24 patients with a life-threatening event (n = 12) or fatal outcome (n = 12) related to failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were used to clarify the underlying scenario.

RESULTS

Fifty episodes of failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were identified and categorized into six scenarios: (1) spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a rate below the detection limits, (2) misclassification of polymorphic VT (PVT) or VF as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), (3) misclassification of VT/VF as cluster of nonsustained VT episodes, (4) misclassification of monomorphic VT (MVT) as SVT, (5) inappropriate shock abortion, and (6) false termination detection. These scenarios occurred respectively 6, 9, 3, 9, 8, and 15 times. In 9/9 (100%) patients with PVT/VF classified as SVT, rate stability was active for rates ranging from 222 to 250 beats/min. MVT detected as SVT was due to the sudden onset criterion in 7/9 (78%) patients and twice a consequence of the rate stability criterion active for rates ranging from 200 to 250 beats/min.

CONCLUSION

We describe six scenarios leading to failure of ventricular arrhythmia detection in a single-chamber detection setting withholding life-saving therapy. These scenarios are more likely to occur with high-rate programming and long detection times, especially if combined with rate stability and sudden onset.

Postpacing Interval During Right Ventricular Overdrive Pacing to Discriminate Supraventricular from Ventricular tachycardia

Introduction

Failure to differentiate supraventricular from ventricular arrhythmias is the most frequent cause of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. We hypothesized that the postpacing interval (PPI) after overdrive right ventricular pacing may differentiate ventricular (VT) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) such as sinus tachycardia, atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia. This hypothesis is based on the entrainment maneuver. Reentrant tachycardia circuit for VTs would haveshorter distance to RV apex than SVTs have, and the conduction time between a ventricular pacing site and the tachycardia origin is expected to be shorter in VTs than in SVTs.

Methods

220episodes from 38 patients with single chamber ICDs that RV overdrive pacing could not terminate or change the tachycardia cycle length (TCL) were retrospectively reviewed. Episodes were classified as VTs (n=115) and SVTs (n=105). TCLs, PPIs and PPI-TCL were compared between groups.

Results

The cycle length of VTs was shorter than SVTs (320.6±30.3 vs 366.5±40 ms, p=0.001). PPI and PPI-TCL of VTs were shorter than SVTs (504.7±128.3 vs 689.2±121.8 ms, p=0.001, 184±103 vs 322.6±106.6 ms, p=0.001; respectively). ROC curve analysis demonstrated a 525 ms cut-off value for PPI has 89% sensitivity and 57.4% specificity to predict inappropriate ICD therapies due to SVTs (AUC:0.852). Similarly, A PPI-TCL <195 ms favored VT as a diagnosis rather than SVT with a 90% sensitivity, and 51% specificity (AUC:0.838).

Conclusion

Analyzing of PPI during overdrive pacing from RV apex may discriminate supraventricular from ventricular tachycardia. This criterion may have a potential role in implantable devices that use a single ventricular lead.

Sensing and detection in Medtronic implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Ensuring sensing and detection of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) was a prerequisite for the clinical trials that established the survival benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, for decades, a high incidence of unnecessary shocks limited patients' and physicians' acceptance of ICD therapy. Oversensing, misclassification of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) as VT, and self-terminating VT accounted for the vast majority of unnecessary shocks. Medtronic ICDs utilize sensitive baseline settings with minimal blanking periods to ensure accurate sensing of VF, VT, and SVT electrograms. Programmable algorithms reject oversensing caused by far-field R waves, T waves, and non-physiologic signals caused by lead failure. A robust hierarchy of SVT-VT discriminators minimize misclassification of SVT as VT. These features, combined with evidence-based programming, have reduced the 1‑year inappropriate shock rate to 1.5 % for dual-/triple-chamber ICDs and to 2.5 % for single-chamber ICDs.

Complexity and safety in medical computing: a clinician’s musings

Some technologies, like scissors and chopsticks, appear inherently simple. Others, like nuclear reactors or life-support electronics, are inherently complex. By nature, the safety issues associated with complex systems are more involved than those associated with simple systems. There are always added cost requirements in complexity, such as special requirements for ensuring safe operation of the system. The very subsystems added to increase safety, however, necessarily add to complexity and, ironically, enrich the number of possible failure modes in the overall system. Thus there is a concern that the failure of any additional safety system may itself lead to new system failure modes that would not have otherwise occurred [1].

These comments explain why simply adding complexity to a system may not always improve on the system’s performance. The following illustrates some of the concerns that I have developed about the potential misapplication of computers in medical technology. These concerns are based on my clinical experience over the last decade in dealing with high-tech aspects of medical care.

Tools and strategies for the reduction of inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to provide a survival benefit in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death. A major problem associated with ICD therapy is the occurrence of inappropriate shocks which impair patients' quality of life and may also be arrhythmogenic. Despite recent technological advances, the incidence of inappropriate shocks remains high, thus posing a challenge that we have to meet. In the present review we summarise the available tools and the strategies that can be followed in order to reduce inappropriate ICD shocks.

Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in MADIT II: frequency, mechanisms, predictors, and survival impact

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to identify the incidence and outcome related to inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, that is, those for nonventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND

The MADIT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial) II showed that prophylactic ICD implantation improves survival in post-myocardial infarction patients with reduced ejection fraction. Inappropriate ICD shocks are common adverse consequences that may impair quality of life.

METHODS

Stored ICD electrograms from all shock episodes were adjudicated centrally. An inappropriate shock episode was defined as an episode during which 1 or more inappropriate shocks occurred; another inappropriate ICD episode occurring within 5 min was not counted. Programmed parameters for patients with and without inappropriate shocks were compared.

RESULTS

One or more inappropriate shocks occurred in 83 (11.5%) of the 719 MADIT II ICD patients. Inappropriate shock episodes constituted 184 of the 590 total shock episodes (31.2%). Smoking, prior atrial fibrillation, diastolic hypertension, and antecedent appropriate shock predicted inappropriate shock occurrence. Atrial fibrillation was the most common trigger for inappropriate shock (44%), followed by supraventricular tachycardia (36%), and then abnormal sensing (20%). The stability detection algorithm was programmed less frequently in patients receiving inappropriate shocks (17% vs. 36%, p = 0.030), whereas other programming parameters did not differ significantly from those without inappropriate shocks. Importantly, patients with inappropriate shocks had a greater likelihood of all-cause mortality in follow-up (hazard ratio 2.29, p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate ICD shocks occurred commonly in the MADIT II study, and were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Differentiation of ventricular and supraventricular tachycardias based on the analysis of the first postpacing interval after sequential anti-tachycardia pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients

BACKGROUND

Current discrimination algorithms do not completely avoid inappropriate tachycardia detection.

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzes the discrimination capability of the changes of the first postpacing interval (FPPI) after successive bursts of anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) trains in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-recorded tachycardias.

METHODS

We included 50 ICD patients in this prospective study. We hypothesized that the FPPI variability (FPPIV) when comparing bursts with different numbers of beats would be shorter in ventricular tachycardias (VTs) compared with supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs). The ATP (5-10 pulses, 91% of tachycardia cycle length) was programmed for tachycardias >240 ms.

RESULTS

Anti-tachycardia pacing was delivered during 37 sinus tachycardias (STs) in an exercise test, 96 induced VTs in an electrophysiological study, and 198 spontaneous episodes (144 VTs and 54 SVTs). The FPPI remained stable after all ATP bursts in VT but changed continuously in SVT; when comparing bursts of 5 and 10 pulses, the FPPIV was shorter in VT (34 +/- 65 vs.138 +/- 69, P<.0001, in all T and 12 +/- 20 vs. 138 +/- 69, P<.0001, in T>or=320 ms) than in SVT. In T>or=320 ms an FPPIV<or=50 ms between bursts of 5 and 10 pulses classified correctly 100% of VTs and 90% of SVTs. Anti-tachycardia pacing terminated 66% of induced VTs, 60% of spontaneous VTs, and 20% of spontaneous SVTs and induced no VT during spontaneous or exercise induced SVT. Five induced and two spontaneous VT episodes were accelerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of FPPIV after ATP discriminates ICD-detected T. Successive bursts (of ATP) trains at 91% of tachycardia cycle length are safe, despite being delivered before rhythm classification.

A new method to investigate the response to the morphology discrimination algorithm in patients with ICD

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate therapy for supraventricular tachyarrhythmia is still a major problem in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). The morphology discrimination algorithm compares the morphology of a tachycardia electrogram with a stored template on a beat-to-beat basis. However, algorithm responders could not yet be identified prior to the occurrence of first tachycardia episodes. We analyzed whether rapid atrial pacing and/or exercise testing can be used for identification of responders and compared the results with ICD detected tachycardia.

METHODS

22 patients (16 male, 61+/-14 years) with dual-chamber ICDs have been enrolled. Patients underwent a standardized bicycle exercise testing and an atrial pacing protocol. For both tests, morphology match scores of 8 consecutive beats were analyzed for each 10-bpm-step increment above sinus rhythm. Patients were categorized as responders, if morphology match was > or = 90% of tested heart rates. During follow-up, ICD stored episodes with morphology discrimination activated were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between morphology match (85+/-29% vs. 84+/-27%) and linear regression slope B (-0.19+/-0.87 vs. -0.20+/-0.48) during exercise testing and atrial pacing. 16 patients (73%) were classified as responders. During follow-up (739+/-338 days) 121 sustained supraventricular (n=88) and ventricular tachycardia (n=33) were detected in 10 patients (45%). Specificity for tachycardia discrimination was 78% overall, 100% in responders and 22% in non-responders.

CONCLUSION

Exercise testing and atrial pacing were equally suitable for identification of patients who seem to respond to the morphology discrimination algorithm with a high specificity for ventricular tachycardia discrimination. Thus, morphology match tests are suggested to optimize tachycardia discrimination and to reduce inadequate therapies.

Improving SVT Discrimination in Single-Chamber ICDs: A New Electrogram Morphology-Based Algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Wide-spread adoption of ICD therapy has focused efforts on improving the quality of life for patients by reducing "inappropriate" shock therapies. To this end, distinguishing supraventricular tachycardia from ventricular tachycardia remains a major challenge for ICDs. More sophisticated discrimination algorithms based on ventricular electrogram morphology have been made practicable by the increased computational ability of modern ICDs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We report results from a large prospective study (1,122 pts) of a new ventricular electrogram morphology tachycardia discrimination algorithm (Wavelet Dynamic Discrimination, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) operating at minimal algorithm setting (RV coil-can electrogram, match threshold of 70%). This is a nonrandomized cohort study of ICD patients using the morphology discrimination of the Wavelet algorithm to distinguish SVT and VT/VF. The Wavelet criterion was required ON in all patients and all other supraventricular tachycardia discriminators were required to be OFF. Spontaneous episodes (N = 2,235) eligible for ICD therapy were adjudicated for detection algorithm performance. The generalized estimating equations method was used to remove bias introduced when an individual patient contributes multiple episodes. Inappropriate therapies for supraventricular tachycardia were reduced by 78% (90% CI: 72.8-82.9%) for episodes within the range of rates where Wavelet was programmed to discriminate. Sensitivity for sustained ventricular tachycardia was 98.6% (90% CI: 97-99.3%) without the use of high-rate time out.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this prospective study of the Wavelet electrogram morphology discrimination algorithm operating as the sole discriminator in the ON mode demonstrate that inappropriate therapy for supraventricular tachycardia in a single-chamber ICD can be dramatically reduced compared to rate detection alone.

The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT): Design of a Randomized Trial Comparing Competitive Rhythm Discrimination Algorithms in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

BACKGROUND

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become primary therapy for the prevention of sudden death. One of the major morbidities of ICD use remains inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). Detection enhancements have increased therapy specificity, but their impact on inappropriate therapy is not well studied. Moreover, ICD manufacturers have developed unique algorithms to meet this goal, with no previous clinical direct comparisons. RIGHT is a randomized, prospective study that will assess the differential efficacy of ICDs from two different manufacturers. It is the first trial to compare directly competitive ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms on a large scale.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study is to assess arrhythmia discrimination in Guidant versus Medtronic ICDs by comparing the time to first inappropriate therapy after the predischarge visit.

METHODS

The study will enroll approximately 2,000 patients in 100 centers. Patients will be randomized to Guidant or Medtronic using a permuted block design, stratified by center and by single/dual chamber device types. Patients will receive a commercially available Guidant VITALITY 2 family ICD with Rhythm ID or a Medtronic ICD using the Enhanced PR Logic or Wavelet discrimination algorithms, and will be followed according to the schedule shown until a common closing date with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All events will be reviewed by an independent committee to determine the appropriateness of rhythm classification and therapy delivery.

CONCLUSION

RIGHT is the first randomized, large scale, head-to-head comparison of ICD discrimination algorithms.

The 1+1 Trial

Background— The tachycardia detection interval (TDI) in implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) is conventionally programmed according to the slowest documented ventricular tachycardia (VT), with a safety margin of 30 to 60 ms. With this margin, VTs above the TDI may occur. However, longer TDIs are associated with an increased risk of inappropriate therapy. We hypothesized that patients with slow VTs (<200 bpm) may benefit from a long TDI and a dual-chamber detection algorithm compared with a conventionally programmed single-chamber ICD.

Methods and Results— Patients with VTs <200 bpm were implanted with a dual-chamber ICD that was randomly programmed to a dual-chamber algorithm and a TDI of ≥469 ms or to a single-chamber algorithm with a TDI 30 to 60 ms above the slowest documented VT cycle length and the enhancement criteria of cycle length variation and acceleration. The primary combined end point was the number of all inappropriate therapies, VTs above the TDI, and VTs with significant therapy delay (>2 minutes). After 6 months, a crossover analysis was performed. Total follow-up was 1 year. One hundred two patients were included in the study. The programmed TDI was 500±36 ms during the dual-chamber phase and 424±63 ms during the single-chamber phase. For the primary end point (inappropriate therapies, VTs above the TDI, or VTs with detection delay), a moderate superiority of the dual-chamber mode was found: Mann-Whitney estimator=0.6661; 95% CI, 0.5565 to 0.7758; P =0.0040.

Conclusions— Dual-chamber detection with a longer TDI improves VT detection and does not increase the rate of inappropriate therapies despite a considerable increase in tachycardia burden.

Enhanced Specificity of a Dual Chamber ICD Arrhythmia Detection Algorithm by Rate Stability Criteria

Inappropriate therapy remains an important limitation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). PARAD+ was developed to increase the specificity conferred by the original PARAD detection algorithm in the detection of atrial fibrillation (AF). To compare the performances of the two different algorithms, we retrospectively analyzed all spontaneous and sustained episodes of AF and ventricular tachycardia (VT) documented by state-of-the-art ICDs programmed with PARAD or PARAD+ at the physicians' discretion. The results were stratified according to tachycardia rates <150 versus > or =150 beats/min. The study included 329 men and 48 women (64 +/- 10 years of age). PARAD was programmed in 263, and PARAD+ in 84 devices. During a mean follow-up of 11 +/- 3 months, 1,019 VT and 315 AF episodes were documented among 338 devices. For tachycardias with ventricular rates <150 beats/min, the sensitivity of PARAD versus PARAD+ was 96% versus 99% (NS), specificity 80% versus 93% (P < 0.002), positive predictive value (PPV) 94% versus 91% (NS), and negative predictive value (NPV) 86% versus 99% (P < 0.0001). In contrast, in the fast VT zone, the specificity and PPV of PARAD (95% versus 84% and 100% versus 96%) were higher than those of PARAD+ (NS, P < 0.001). Among 23 AF episodes treated in 16 patients, 3 episodes triggered an inappropriate shock in 3 patients, all in the PARAD population. PARAD+ significantly increased the ICD algorithm diagnostic specificity and NPV for AF in the slow VT zone without compromising patient safety.

High Incidence of Appropriate and Inappropriate ICD Therapies in Children and Adolescents with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Appropriate and inappropriate therapies of implantable cardioverter defibrillators have a major impact on morbidity and quality of life in ICD recipients, but have not been systematically studied in children and young adults during long-term follow-up. ICD implantation was performed in 20 patients at the mean age of 16 +/- 6 years, 11 of which had prior surgical repair of a congenital heart defect, 9 patients had other cardiac diseases. Implant indications were aborted sudden cardiac death in six patients, recurrent ventricular tachycardia in 9 patient, and syncope in 5 patients. Epicardial implantation was performed in 6 and transvenous implantation in 14 patients. Incidence, reasons and predictors (age, gender, repaired congenital heart disease, history of supraventricular tachycardia, and epicardial electrode system) of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies were analyzed during a mean follow-up period of 51 +/- 31 months range 18-132 months. There were a total 239 ICD therapies in 17 patients (85%) with a therapy rate of 2.8 per patient-years of follow-up. 127 (53%) ICD therapies in 15 (75%) patients were catagorized as appropriate and 112 (47%) therapies in 10 (50%) patients as inappropriate, with a rate of 1.5 appropriate and 1.3 inappropriate ICD therapies per patient-years of follow-up. Time to first appropriate therapy was 16 +/- 18 months. Appropriate therapies were caused by ventricular fibrillation in 29 and ventricular tachycardia in 98 episodes. Termination was successful by antitachycardia pacing in 4 (3%) and by shock therapy in 123 episodes (97%). Time to first inappropriate therapy was 16 +/- 17 months. Inappropriate therapies were caused by supraventricular tachycardia in 77 (69%), T wave oversensing in 19 (17%), and electrode defect in 16 episodes (14%). It caused shocks in 87 (78%) and only antitachycardia pacing in 25 episodes (22%). No clinical variable could be identified as predictor of either appropriate or inappropriate ICD therapies. There is a high rate of ICD therapies in young ICD recipients, the majority of which occur during early follow-up. The rate of inappropriate therapies is as high as 47% and is caused by supraventricular tachycardia and electrode complications in the majority of cases. Prospective trials are required to establish preventative strategies of ICD therapies in this young patient population.

Clinical Experience with a New Detection Algorithm for Differentiation of Supraventricular from Ventricular Tachycardia in a Dual-Chamber Defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate therapy for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVT) is a frequent problem of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). Dual-chamber ICDs have been developed to improve discrimination of SVT from ventricular tachycardia (VT). We investigated the positive predictivity, sensitivity, and specificity of a new algorithm, the SMART detection trade mark algorithm, incorporated in the Phylax AV (Biotronik) dual-chamber ICD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients (185 men, age 64 +/- 11 years) received a Phylax AV ICD with SMART detection trade mark activated. In 138 of these patients, 1,245 sustained tachycardia episodes with a detailed electrogram were stored in the device during a follow-up period of 10 +/- 6 months. Episodes were correctly classified as ventricular fibrillation (VF, n = 178) in 52 patients, VT (n = 641) in 98 patients, and SVT (n = 385) in 48 patients by the algorithm. Forty-one true SVT episodes (3.3%) were misclassified as VT: atrial fibrillation (n = 7) and flutter (n = 1), sinus tachycardia (n = 12), and other SVT (n = 21). The positive predictivity for VF/VT was 94.5% (95% CI 92.7-95.8) uncorrected and 94.5% (95% CI 92.9-95.8%) corrected with the generalized equation estimation (GEE) method. The positive predictivity for SVT was 100%. The specificity was 88.9% (95% CI 85.6-91.6%) uncorrected and 89.0% (95% CI 85.6-91.6%) corrected with the GEE method with a sensitivity of 100%.

CONCLUSION

The SMART detection trade mark algorithm was safe and reliable for the detection of all ventricular tachycardias. Although its specificity was high, it should be improved with regard to SVT to avoid inappropriate ICD therapies.

Safety and Efficacy of a Dual Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Capable of Slow Ventricular Tachycardia Discrimination:

New developments in dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) have increased the specificity of therapy delivery. This study was performed to examine the performance of an algorithm, focusing on its ability to distinguish slow ventricular tachycardia (VT) from sinus rhythm or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. The patient population included 77 men and 13 women, 63 +/- 11 years old, treated with ICDs after episodes of spontaneous or inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias. They were randomized to programming of the ICD to a lower limit of VT detection at 128 beats/min (group I, n = 44), versus 153 beats/min II (group II, n = 46). The primary endpoint of the study consisted of comparing the specificity and sensitivity of the algorithm between the two groups of patients. Over a 10.1 +/- 3.5 months follow-up, 325 episodes were detected in the Tachy zone in group I, versus 106 in group II. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm in group I were 98.8% and 94.4%, respectively, versus 100% and 89% in group II (NS). A single episode of VT at a rate of 132 beats/min was diagnosed as SVT in group I. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm for tachycardias <153 beats/min were 97.4% and 94.5%, respectively. Overall VT therapy efficacy was 100% in both groups. The performance of this algorithm in the slow VT zone supports the programming of a long Tachy detection interval to document slow events, and allows to treat slow VT, if necessary, without significant risk of inappropriate interventions for sinus tachycardia.

Chronic Experiences with a Single Lead Dual Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator System

Monitoring of atrial rhythm in patients implanted with ICDs may improve accuracy in identifying supraventricular arrhythmias and, therefore, prevent inappropriate therapies. Since difficulties were found in dual chamber ICDs with separate leads, a new designed single lead dual chamber ICD system was tested. Twenty-five patients implanted with a Deikos A+ (single coil defibrillation lead with two atrial sensing rings combined with a dual chamber ICD with a high amplifying atrial channel) were tested. Atrial and ventricular signals were analyzed during sinus rhythm (SR) and sinus tachycardias (STs), atrial flutter and AF, and VT or VF. Follow-ups were performed after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after implantation. Analysis of EGM amplitudes of stored episodes revealed that atrial signals during atrial flutter (2.1 +/- 0.51 mV) were comparable to those of ST (2.2 +/- 0.5 mV). Atrial amplitudes during AF were significantly lower (0.81 +/- 0.5 mV, P<0.01). During VF atrial "sinus" signals (2 +/- 0.8 mV) were stable. Ventricular parameters did not differ from a standard ICD lead; defibrillation threshold was 11.4 +/- 4.5 J (16 patients). During intraoperative and prehospital discharge measurements, 97.1% of SR-P waves and 99.2% of atrial flutter waves were detected correctly. In AF 91.11% of atrial signals were detected. Analysis of 505 stored episodes showed that 96.8% of ST and 100% of atrial flutter and 100% of AF episodes have been classified correctly and no underdetection of VT/VF was found. The first experiences with the new VDD-ICD system show an increase of the specificity to detect ventricular tachycardias to a level comparable to dual chamber ICDs with two leads. The reliability of this system has to be proven in a prospective randomized study.

Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

INTRODUCTION

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is commonly used to treat patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia recurrence rates in these patients are high, but which patients will receive a therapy and the forms of arrhythmia recurrence (VT or VF) are poorly understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The therapy delivered by the ICD was examined in 449 patients randomized to ICD therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Events triggering ICD shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were reviewed for arrhythmia diagnosis, clinical symptoms, activity at the onset of the arrhythmia, and appropriateness and results of therapy. Both shock and ATP therapies were frequent by 2 years, with 68% of patients receiving some therapy or having an arrhythmic death. An appropriate shock was delivered in 53% of patients, and ATP was delivered in 68% of patients who had ATP activated. The first arrhythmia treated in follow-up was diagnosed as VT (63%), VF (13%), supraventricular tachycardia (18%), unknown arrhythmia (3%), or due to ICD malfunction or inappropriate sensing (3%). Acceleration of an arrhythmia by the ICD occurred in 8% of patients who received any therapy. No physical activity consistently preceded arrhythmias, nor did any single clinical factor predict the symptoms of the arrhythmia.

CONCLUSION

Delivery of ICD therapy in AVID patients was common, primarily due to VT. Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred frequently. Use of ICD therapy as a surrogate endpoint for death in clinical trials should be avoided.

Algorithms for better arrhythmia discrimination in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The discrimination of concomitant atrial tachyarrhythmias and sinus tachycardias in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a major challenge for new defibrillator devices. Different algorithms have now been established to distinguish between atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Furthermore, new dual-chamber implantable defibrillators are capable of tiered atrial therapies for both regular and irregular atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The increasingly complex and subtle dual-chamber detection algorithms have proven to be safe and effective for the detection of ventricular tachycardia, and also in terms of an increase in specificity and a reduction in inappropriate ventricular therapies for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Stable electrode position, and a continuous and correct atrial signal quality, are prerequisites for atrial therapies and algorithms for arrhythmia discrimination.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have evolved from the treatment of last resort to the gold standard therapy for patients at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. High-risk patients include those who have survived life-threatening arrhythmias, and individuals with cardiac diseases who are at risk for such arrhythmias, but are symptomless. Use of an ICD will affect the patient's quality of life. Some drugs can substantially affect defibrillator function and efficacy, and possible drug-device interactions should be considered. Patients with ICDs may encounter cell phones, antitheft detectors, and many other sources of potential electromagnetic Interference. In addition to treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, new defibrillators provide full featured dual chamber pacing, and could treat atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure by means of biventricular pacing.

Current status of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Clinical trials have established the superiority of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) over antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of sudden cardiac death and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. The ICD has evolved to overcome the limitation of earlier devices that required thoracotomy for implantation and were fraught with inappropriate shock delivery. Current ICDs are implanted in a similar manner to cardiac pacemakers and incorporate sophisticated rhythm-discrimination algorithms to prevent inappropriate therapy. Managing the patient with an ICD requires an understanding of the multiprogrammable features of modern devices. Drug interactions and potential sources of electromagnetic interference may adversely affect ICD function. Driving restrictions may be necessary under certain conditions. The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy appears favorable, given the marked survival benefit seen in randomized trials relative to antiarrhythmic drug treatment. The growing number of ICD recipients necessitates an understanding of the specialized features of the modern ICD and the role of device therapy in clinical practice.

Dual chamber arrhythmia detection in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology extended ICD therapy to more than termination of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachyarrhythmias. It created the basis for dual chamber arrhythmia management in which dependable detection is important for treatment and prevention of both ventricular and atrial arrhythmias.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Dual chamber detection algorithms were investigated in two Medtronic dual chamber ICDs: the 7250 Jewel AF (33 patients) and the 7271 Gem DR (31 patients). Both ICDs use the same PR Logic algorithm to interpret tachycardia as ventricular tachycardia (VT), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), or dual (VT+ SVT). The accuracy of dual chamber detection was studied in 310 of 1,367 spontaneously occurring tachycardias in which rate criterion only was not sufficient for arrhythmia diagnosis. In 78 episodes there was a double tachycardia, in 223 episodes SVT was detected in the VT or ventricular fibrillation zone, and in 9 episodes arrhythmia was detected outside the boundaries of the PR Logic functioning. In 100% of double tachycardias the VT was correctly diagnosed and received priority treatment. SVT was seen in 59 (19%) episodes diagnosed as VT. The causes of inappropriate detection were (1) algorithm failure (inability to fulfill the PR<RP condition in atrial tachyarrhythmias with 1:1 AV conduction, and far-field R wave sensing intermittently present during sinus tachycardia); (2) programming settings (atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter with ventricular rate above the SVT limit); and (3) algorithm limitations (atrial tachycardia with ventricular rate around the shortest programmable SVT limit and SVT redetection following VT therapy). Programming measures improved detection ability in 13 of 59 of inappropriately detected arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

Dual chamber detection algorithms evaluated in a subset of diagnostically difficult arrhythmias allow safe detection of double tachycardias but require further extension and programmability to improve VT:SVT discrimination rules.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Current Progress and Management

With greater technologic advances during the past decade, use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has increased to more than 200,000 implants worldwide to date. Indications for ICD implant have expanded to include both patients who have survived sudden cardiac death (secondary prevention of cardiac arrest) and those who are at high risk for experiencing lethal arrhythmias (primary prevention of cardiac ar rest). Thus, it is likely that physicians will encounter defibrillators in their clinical practice and must be familiar with their indications for implant, basic opera tion, and long-term management of devices. Several prospective clinical trials have recently shown the long- term efficacy of ICD therapy at aborting sudden death in the high-risk patient population. Although still evolving, general guidelines and indications for ICD implant have been put forth and are discussed in this review. From the first defibrillation in humans during surgery in 1947 to the sophisticated dual-chamber pacing and memory functions of the modern device, ICD development has led to ever smaller devices with more complex technol ogy. The implant procedure of current ICDs parallels that used to place pacemakers. However, the anesthe sia team plays a vital role in initial ICD implantation by monitoring cardiopulmonary status during defibrilla tion threshold (DFT) testing. Additionally, long-term management of ICDs often requires repeat DFT testing with anesthesia involvement. Finally, possible electro magnetic (environmental) interactions with the ICD of which physicians should be aware are described in this article.

Ventricular tachycardias above the initially programmed tachycardia detection interval in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: incidence, prediction and significance

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was performed to provide data on ventricular tachycardias (VT) with a cycle length longer than the initially programmed tachycardia detection interval (TDI) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

BACKGROUND

It has been clinical practice to program a safety margin of 30 to 60 ms between the slowest spontaneous or inducible VT and the TDI.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics of 659 consecutive patients with ICDs were prospectively; follow-up information was retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 31+/-23 months, 377 patients (57.2%) had at least one recurrent VT or ventricular fibrillation; 47 patients (7.1%) suffered 61 VTs above the TDI. The risk of a VT above the TDI ranged between 2.7% and 3.5% per year during the first four years after ICD implantation. The difference between the cycle length of the slowest VT before ICD implantation, spontaneous or induced, and the first VT above TDI was 108+/-58 ms. Fifty-four VTs (88.5%) above the TDI were associated with significant clinical symptoms (angina or palpitation 63.9%, heart failure 6.6% and syncope 8.2%). Six patients (9.8%) had to be resuscitated. Kaplan-Meyer analysis identified New York Heart Association class II or III (p = 0.021), ejection fraction < 0.40 (p = 0.027), spontaneous (p<0.001) or inducible (p<0.001) monomorphic VTs and the use of class III antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone, p<0.001; sotalol, p = 0.004) as risk predictors of VTs above the TDI. The risk of recurrent VTs above TDI was 11.8%, 12.5% and 26.6% during the first, second and third year after first VT above TDI, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of VTs above the TDI is significantly increased in some patients, and many VTs above TDI cause significant clinical symptoms. A larger safety margin between spontaneous or inducible VTs and the TDI seems to be necessary in selected patients. This is in conflict with an increased risk of inadequate episodes and demands highly specific and sensitive detection algorithms in these patients.

Methods of minimizing inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks

As more and more patients receive complex implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), profound knowledge about the incidence of inappropriate device therapy, the reasons it happens, and the possibilities for prevention is crucial. In this article, the most important prevention algorithms incorporated in current ICD models and their advantages and handicaps are discussed in detail, which should help to guide the device selection for a particular patient. Also, emphasis is put on adjunctive drug therapy and interventional treatment strategies, which are crucial in managing patients with inappropriate ICD shocks.

Defibrillator challenges for the new millennium: the marriage of device and patient-making and maintaining a good match

Although it has become clear that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective, important challenges remain for the physician. Due to the limitations of available risk stratification tools, patient selection for primary sudden death prevention remains controversial in many populations. Additionally, the proliferation of device choices has led to challenges in matching the appropriate device to the individual patient: device size is balanced against longevity; the advantages of dual chamber systems is weighed against their increased complexity; physician and patient preferences in device implant site are constrained by site-dependent effects on defibrillation effectiveness and lead failure rates; and special consideration must be given to the patient with a preexisting pacemaker. After ICD placement, determination of appropriate follow-up frequency and methodology to assess device function must be considered. This article will review patient selection, device implant site selection, device-device interactions, single versus dual chamber ICD selection, and follow-up.

Inappropriate therapy from atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia in automated implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate therapy from supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (atrial fibrillation [AF] and sinus tachycardia [ST]) in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators is a major challenge. We tested the performance of stability algorithms from 3 manufacturers for episodes of inappropriate therapy delivered because of AF and an onset algorithm for all episodes of inappropriate therapy caused by ST.

METHODS

Therapy was classified as caused by ventricular tachycardia (VT), ST, or AF from review of stored intracardiac electrograms, history, clinical information, and R-R data before study inception. By using 30 to 60 R-R intervals before therapy, sensitivity and specificity for a family of stability values and percentage of onset values were calculated for each manufacturer and receiver operating characteristic curves generated.

RESULTS

Of the 217 patients monitored, 62 (29%) received inappropriate therapy, and 40 had complete R-R information available. Of the 40 patients, 21 patients received therapy for AF, 19 for ST, and 1 patient for noise; 15 (38%) also received appropriate therapy for VT. We analyzed 83 episodes of VT from 18 patients, 94 episodes of AF from 21 patients, and 56 episodes of ST from 19 patients. Specificity, in the clinically relevant sensitivity range of >/=95%, was comparable across manufacturers at about 40%. An onset value of 80% was associated with 91% sensitivity and 95% specificity for the specific algorithm tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate therapy is a common problem in implantable cardiac defibrillators. The performance of the stability algorithms used to differentiate AF from VT was less than ideal, though comparable across manufacturers. The onset algorithm accurately differentiates ST from VT.

Managing atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is accepted as the therapy of choice in preventing sudden cardiac death. Multiple studies, such as Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID), the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), and the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT), have shown a substantial benefit in survival rates for patients treated with ICDs compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment. The detection of spontaneous ventricular tachycardias (VT) is based primarily on the programmed heart rate for intervention of the device. Supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) cause unnecessary therapy delivery in about 10-20% of patients with ICDs. ICD therapy needs to be improved to become more specific for VT detection, by implementing algorithms that discriminate between VTs and SVTs. The enhanced detection criteria in currently available ICD devices are able to decrease the rate of unnecessary therapy to < 5% of patients. Atrial tachyarrhythmias can be managed with programmable features of the device, antiarrhythmic drug treatment, and in rare cases, ablation procedures. Dual-chamber ICDs, requiring an additional atrial lead, are indicated in specific situations of slow VT and concurrent, continuous SVTs at very similar heart rates. Using all these options, SVTs can be managed to achieve an acceptably low incidence of unnecessary therapy delivery in < 5% of ICD patients.

A preview of implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems in the next millennium: an integrative cardiac rhythm management approach

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), a primary therapeutic option for preventing sudden cardiac death, has rapidly evolved since being introduced clinically in 1980. Technologic advances in several key areas have enabled ICDs to provide more sophisticated rhythm management. Recent emphasis has been placed on dual-chamber ICDs possessing adaptive-rate pacing capabilities. Adoption of dual-chamber ICD systems has been rapid. The capabilities of future ICD systems will be governed by an integrative strategy that brings together sets of features specifically targeted at multifaceted rhythm disorders. The addition of atrial therapy will require more sophisticated rhythm discrimination algorithms. ICD technology will improve on several fronts including leads, integrated circuits, batteries, and capacitors. Additionally, state-of-the-art pacemaker technology will continue to be incorporated into ICDs. As these new ICD systems become increasingly sophisticated from an engineering viewpoint, tremendous emphasis will be placed on decreasing the complexity of programming, device interrogation, and patient monitoring during routine patient follow-up. Vast improvements in ICD programming systems may ultimately permit the 1-minute follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of the initial use of stability and onset criteria in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate therapies are the most frequent adverse event in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Most ICDs offer a stability criterion to discriminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) from atrial fibrillation and an onset criterion to discriminate VT from sinus tachycardia. The efficacy and safety of these criteria, if used immediately after implantation, is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a case control study, 87 patients in whom stability and onset criteria had been activated immediately after ICD implantation were matched to 87 patients in whom these criteria had not been activated. The groups were matched for known predictors of inappropriate therapies. With stability and onset criteria off, 24 patients (28%) received inappropriate therapies due to atrial fibrillation (n = 14) or sinus tachycardia (n = 11); with stability and onset on, only 11 patients (13%) were treated by the ICD due to atrial fibrillation (n = 5) or sinus tachycardia (n = 7) (log rank: P = 0.029). Five patients suffered inappropriate therapies despite the fact that onset (n = 4) or stability (n = 1) criteria were not fulfilled once tachycardias continued for a prespecified duration. Only one patient experienced a failure to detect VT due to the onset criterion; none because of stability.

CONCLUSION

The immediate use of stability and onset criteria after ICD implantation reduces inappropriate therapies due to atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia. Because of the potential for underdetection of VT, this approach should be limited to tachycardia rates hemodynamically tolerated by the patient.

A new defibrillator discrimination algorithm utilizing electrogram morphology analysis

Inappropriate therapies delivered by implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for supraventricular arrhythmias remain a common problem, particularly in the event of rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation or marked sinus tachycardia. The ability to differentiate between ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular arrhythmias is the major goal of discrimination algorithms. Therefore, we developed a new algorithm, SimDis, utilizing morphological features of the shocking electrograms. This algorithm was developed from electrogram data obtained from 36 patients undergoing ICD implantation. An independent test set was evaluated in 25 patients. Recordings were made in sinus rhythm, sinus tachycardia, and following the induction of ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation. The arrhythmia complex is defined as wide if the duration is at least 30% greater than the template in sinus rhythm. For narrow complexes, four maximum and minimum values were measured to form a 4-element feature vector, which was compared with a representative feature vector during normal sinus rhythm. For each rhythm, any wide complex was classified as ventricular tachycardia. For narrow complexes, the second step of the algorithm compared the electrogram with the template, computing similarity and dissimilarity values. These values were then mapped to determine if they fell within a previously established discrimination boundary. On the independent test set, the SimDis algorithm correctly classified 100% of ventricular tachycardias (27/27), 98% of sinus tachycardias (54/55), and 100% of episodes of atrial fibrillation (37/37). We conclude that the SimDis algorithm yields high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (99%) for arrhythmia discrimination, using the computational capabilities of an ICD system.

First postpacing interval variability during right ventricular stimulation: a single algorithm for the differential diagnosis of regular tachycardias

BACKGROUND

Failure to differentiate supraventricular from ventricular arrhythmias is the most frequent cause of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies. Although a sudden-onset criterion is available to differentiate sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardias (SMVTs) and sinus tachycardias (STs), SMVTs arising during ST and SMVTs gradually accelerating above the cutoff rate can remain undetected. Regular paroxysmal atrial tachycardias (ATs) also can be undetected by onset and stability algorithms. We hypothesized that the first postpacing interval (FPPI) variability after overdrive right ventricular pacing may differentiate SMVTs from STs and ATs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

FPPI variability was measured in 23 SMVTs (cycle length [CL] 366+/-50 ms [VT group]), 27 supraventricular tachycardias, 15 episodes of induced or simulated ATs (CL 376+/-29 ms [AT group]), and 12 exercise-related STs (CL 381+/-24 [ST group]). Sequences of trains of 5, 10, and 15 beats were delivered with a CL 40 ms shorter than the tachycardia CL. An FPPI absolute mean difference between consecutive trains of 5 and 10 beats (deltaFPPI) < or =25 ms identified all VTs (mean difference 5+/-7 ms). In the AT group, the deltaFPPI was >25 ms in all sequences (mean difference 129+/-60 ms, P<0.01). In the ST group, the deltaFPPI was >50 ms in all STs (mean difference 118+/-47 ms, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

FPPI variability may differentiate SMVT from AT and ST. This criterion is potentially useful in implantable devices that use a single ventricular lead.

Enhanced detection criteria in implantable defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced detection criteria in third-generation implantable defibrillators have been implemented to avoid inappropriate therapy of fast supraventricular arrhythmias. We prospectively analyzed the use of these criteria in patients with an implantable defibrillator with electrogram storing capability.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 82 consecutive patients with a Guidant-CPI implantable defibrillator, sudden onset > 9% and stability < 40 msec were systematically programmed in zone 1 of therapy together with a sustained rate duration security mechanism. All detected tachycardia episodes were analyzed. The study population consisted of 59 patients who had at least one episode of tachycardia detected in zone 1 during follow-up. The tachycardia rate in zone 1 never exceeded 210 beats/min. Twenty patients had no episodes during follow-up, and three patients had episodes detected exclusively in zone 2 of therapy. Supraventricular arrhythmias were detected frequently in the ventricular tachycardia zone (193 of 690 tachycardia episodes in 23 of 59 patients). Use of sudden onset was very effective in detecting sinus tachycardias (65 of 67 episodes), and stability was very useful in detecting atrial fibrillation (31 of 32 episodes). However, sensitivity in detecting ventricular tachycardia was only 90% (451 of 497 episodes). Application of the sustained rate duration criterion allowed appropriate treatment of all ventricular tachycardia episodes, increasing sensitivity to 100%; however, specificity in appropriate nontreatment of supraventricular decreased from 96% to 83%. Subsequent analysis of different algorithms applied to our data showed that sudden onset > 9% and stability < 40 msec was the algorithm with the best specificity and sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Programming sudden onset and stability detection criteria with a sustained rate duration safety net for triggering tachycardia therapy results in appropriate device management in most patients with supraventricular and slow (< 210 beats/min) ventricular tachycardias.

A new classification algorithm for discrimination of ventricular from supraventricular tachycardia in a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

The high incidence of inappropriate therapies due to supraventricular tachycardia remains a major unsolved problem of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. We report a new detection formula for discrimination of ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia in a patient with a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator and a new atrioventricular classification algorithm.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The enhanced detection algorithm performs a stepwise arrhythmia analysis. The rhythm is first classified on the basis of cycle length. Each episode is then classified as supraventricular or ventricular on the basis of atrioventricular association, stability of circle length, and origin of acceleration. Sophisticated diagnostic information is provided by atrioventricular markers and electrogram recordings. Successful discrimination of two spontaneous episodes of ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular tachycardia is demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

This new dual chamber detection algorithm may significantly improve the specificity of tachyarrhythmia detection without sacrificing sensitivity, thereby reducing the number of spurious shocks in patients with recurrent supraventricular tachycardias. Further studies are needed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of this detection algorithm.

Underdetection of ventricular tachycardia using a 40 ms stability criterion: effect of antiarrhythmic therapy

Inappropriate shocks can complicate cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Among solutions proposed to avoid oversensing are algorithms to reduce inappropriate detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus tachycardia. In patients not on antiarrythmic drugs, an interval stability criterion of 40 ms has been validated with the Medtronic PCD to discriminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) from AF. With this algorithm, VT is considered stable if no interval varies from one of the three preceding intervals by more than 40 ms. If an interval does not fulfill this criterion, the VT event counter is reset to zero. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of underdetection when this criterion is applied in patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs. We studied 132 sustained monomorphic VTs induced in 42 patients during 101 electrophysiological studies (EPS). EPS were performed without treatment (group I, 24 patients, 44 VTs); on Class Ia drug (group II, 17 patients, 24 VTs); Class Ic drug (group III, 22 patients, 39 VTs); or sotalol (group IV, 17 patients, 25 VTs). The endocardial electrogram of all VT episodes was digitized and the stability algorithm was applied. The reset arrhythmias were distributed among no delay, small, moderate (< 10 s) and important (> 15 s) delay in VT detection. The relation between drug use and reset was analyzed. Reset was found in 86 (65%) of induced VTs. No difference in heart rate or induction mode was shown between reset and nonreset VTs. There was a significative association between drug use and reset probability (Chi2 significantly different, P < 0.05). In patients treated with Class Ic drugs, the probability of finding an important delay in VT detection was 12.5% versus 0% in nontreated patients or in patients treated with sotalol. We conclude that a stability criterion of 40 ms is probably safe in nontreated patients but should be used with caution in patients treated with antiarrhythmics, especially in the presence of Class Ic drugs.

Discrimination of atrial fibrillation from regular atrial rhythms by spatial precision of local activation direction

This study tests the hypothesis that atrial fibrillation (AFib) can be discriminated from regular atrial rhythms by a measure of the variation in local activation direction. Human endocardial atrial recordings of AFib, sinus rhythm, atrial flutter, and supraventricular tachycardia were collected using a catheter with orthogonally placed electrodes, and the direction of each activation was calculated using methods previously described by our laboratory. Each recording was divided into segments containing 100 activations, and the spatial precision for each segment was calculated in three dimensions, as well as in each of the three two-dimensional (2-D) planes. The three-dimensional (3-D) spatial precision for 1161 segments of AFib in 11 recordings ranged from 0.09-0.85 (mean = 0.45), whereas the spatial precision for 138 segments of regular rhythms in 28 recordings was > or = 0.91 in all but four instances. The 2-D spatial precision values overlapped for all rhythms. The results indicate that 3-D spatial precision of local activation direction is a useful discriminator of AFib.

ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions

Antiarrhythmic drugs and separate bradycardia pacing systems are prescribed commonly in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on ICD function and adverse interactions between ICDs and pacemakers have been documented. The effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients has not been well assessed. Most studies have been performed in animal models in which cardiac function was normal and drug doses were supraphysiologic. In addition, most studies have utilized monophasic defibrillation shock waveforms and epicardial lead systems. Despite the lack of clinical data applicable to current defibrillation systems, it appears that chronic amiodarone administration causes a significant DFT increase. In addition, antiarrhythmic drugs can influence antitachycardia pacing and tachycardia sensing. Defibrillation shocks can cause transient failure of pacemaker sensing and pacing, and cause spurious pacemaker reprogramming. Pacemaker function can result in ICD oversensing, leading to inappropriate therapy, or cause ICD undersensing, potentially resulting in failure to deliver therapy during ventricular fibrillation. The susceptibility of an ICD to undersensing appears related to the amplitude of the pacing stimulus artifact recorded by the ICD rate-sensing circuit and to the characteristics of the fibrillation electrogram. Preliminary data suggest that undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by current ICDs is an unlikely event.