Defensive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming is safe and reduces inappropriate therapy ― Comparison of 3 programming strategies in 1,471 patients ―

8Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Careful device programming is necessary to reduce inappropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and shock therapy in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). This retrospective study investigated the safety and efficacy of a therapy-reducing programming strategy in comparison with conventional strategies in consecutive ICD recipients of a university cardiac center. Methods and Results: All 1,471 ICD recipients from 2000 to 2015 were analyzed. Individual ICD programming (IND) was used from 2000 to 2005 followed by standard-three-zone programming (STD) until 2010. From 2010 to 2015 therapy-reducing long detection time programming (RED) was established. The mean follow-up was 2.4±1.6, 2.3±1.6 and 1.7±1.2 years in the IND, STD and RED groups, respectively. Switchover from IND to STD revealed a significant reduction in inappropriate ATP (P=0.024) and shock therapy (P<0.001). Further reduction of 58% (RR=0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17–1.04; P=0.061) in inappropriate ATP and 29% (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.29–1.72; P=0.452) in inappropriate shock therapy was achieved by switchover from STD to RED. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in time until first inappropriate ATP and shock therapy among the 3 groups, being lowest in the RED group (P≤0.001). There was no difference in overall mortality (P=0.416). Conclusions: Defensive ICD programming with prolonged detection times is safe and significantly reduced inappropriate ICD therapies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Burger, A. L., Stojkovic, S., Schmidinger, H., Ristl, R., & Pezawas, T. (2018). Defensive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming is safe and reduces inappropriate therapy ― Comparison of 3 programming strategies in 1,471 patients ―. Circulation Journal, 82(12), 2976–2982. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-18-0611

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free