Clinical Experience with a Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator to Treat Atrial Tachyarrhythmias

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to detect and treat atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and no indication for a ventricular ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: A dual-chamber ICD (Medtronic 7250 Jewel AF) was implanted in 144 of 146 patients. The device discriminates atrial tachycardia from AF based on cycle length and regularity, and uses atrial overdrive pacing as well as shocks to terminate tachyarrhythmia episodes. Patients were followed for an average of 12.6+/-6.2 months. Use of antiarrhythmic drugs was 63% at baseline and did not change over time. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month complication-free survival, device therapy survival, and patient survival were 85%, 91%, and 98%, respectively. Positive predictive accuracy of spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmia detection was 99%, while atrial overdrive pacing and shocks terminated 40% and 87% of treated episodes, respectively. Median duration of successfully treated episodes was 8.9 minutes versus 144 minutes for the therapy failures. There was no reduction in the use of patient-activated shock therapy over time; at the 12-month follow-up evaluation, 94% of patients were in sinus rhythm. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias (67 episodes) were detected and appropriately treated in 7.6% of patients. CONCLUSION: This dual-chamber ICD appears to be safe and well tolerated in patients with drug-refractory symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias. The device, used in combination with drugs, effectively treats atrial tachyarrhythmias with pacing and/or shock therapies and decreases the median episode duration. In addition, the device protects from ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with AF and structural heart disease.     

Atrial Pacing Therapies for Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Implantable Defibrillators

Atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia (AT) occur frequently in patients following implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Some new generation ICDs have incorporated atrial antitachycardia pacing therapy (ATP) and atrial pacing algorithms designed specifically for the prevention of AF. In the GEM III AT clinical evaluation, atrial ATP efficacy for termination of AF and AT was assessed. Overall ATP efficacy for AF/AT, based on device classification, was 40% when adjusted using the Generalized Estimating Equations to account for correlated data that arises from utilizing multiple episodes in some patients. However, many episodes of AF/AT were noted to terminate within 10 minutes of onset. Applying a more conservative definition of efficacy, termination within 20 sec of delivery of the last atrial ATP, efficacy for termination of AF/AT was 26%. 50 Hz burst pacing was shown to have minimal efficacy for termination of AF and modest incremental benefit following ramp or burst pacing therapies for AT. These observations provide a more realistic expectation of the value of atrial ATP in the ICD population with AF. Atrial ATP terminates some episodes of AT but previously reported efficacy rates of 40-50% are exaggerated and in part reflect spontaneous terminations of some AF/AT episodes.     

Implantable Dual-Chamber Defibrillator for the Selective Treatment of Spontaneous Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmias: Arrhythmia Incidence and Device Performance

Introduction: Atrial tachyarrhythmias are a common co-morbidity in patients with an ICD indication. Recently introduced ICDs are equipped to independently detect and treat atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the incidence and termination of spontaneous atrial and ventricular tachyarrythmias in patients with a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias.Methods and Results: Ninety patients, 70% male with an ICD indication and history of atrial tachyarrhythmia (LVEF 45 ± 6%, [AT/AF indication 55 ± 10, AT/VT 45 ± 16], 46% CAD) were enrolled and 89 were implanted with a VENTAK PRIZM AVT (Guidant). Spontaneous atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias were printed and evaluated during an average follow-up period of 272 ± 72 days utilizing the stored intracardial electrogram function of the device. Nineteen patients (21%) presented had only atrial tachyarrhythmias, 32 patients (36%) had both atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias and 18 patients (20%) had only ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients with only atrial tachyarrhythmias had a total of 3274 atrial episodes; 2002 terminated spontaneously, 1264 were treated with ATP and 8 with shock therapy. ATP was successful in 735 (58%) of 1264 episodes. Patients with both atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias had 7277 documented atrial tachyarrhythmias, 5231 terminated spontaneously, 1153 of 2009 were terminated by ATP (57.4%) and 37 by shock therapy (20 patient controlled). Atrial tachyarrhythmias identified as atrial flutter (AT) by the atrial rhythm classification (ARC) algorithm had a higher ATP conversion success rate than episodes identified as atrial fibrillation (AF); 66.7% for AT and 26.4% for AF. Patients with only ventricular tachyarrhythmias had 690 documented episodes, 401 terminated spontaneously, 248 (85.8%) were terminated by ATP and 41 by shock.Conclusion: Seventy-seven percent of patients with an ICD indication had spontaneous atrial and/or ventricular tachyharrhythmias within the first 6 months after ICD implantation. ATP therapy terminated 58% of all atrial tachyarrhytmias and 66.7% of the atrial flutters. The dual chamber ICD detected, classified and terminated all ventricular tacharrhythmias appropriately.     

Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Induced by Implantable Ventricular Defibrillator Shocks:

Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Induced by Defibrillator Shocks. Introduction : We evaluated the incidence and energy dependence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) induced by implantable ventricular defibrillator shocks in 63 patients tested in the operating room or electrophysiology laboratory.
Methods and Results : Defibrillator shocks were epicardial monophasic in 32 patients, and through an Endotak® lead endocardial monophasic in 19 and biphasic in 12 patients. The epicardial and endocardial patient groups had similar clinical characteristics. A total of 517 defibrillator shocks were given. The epicardial group received 336 total defibrillator shocks and 10 ± 6 shocks (mean ± SD) per patient compared with the endocardial group, which received 181 total shocks and 6 ± 4 defibrillator shocks per patient (P = 0.004). In the epicardial group, AF occurred in 13 (41 %) patients and in 17 (5%) of the 336 shocks. No AF was induced with endocardial defibrillator shocks. The epicardial mean energy was 16 ± 9 J, lower than the endocardial mean energy of 20 ± 9 J (P < 0.004). In the epicardial monophasic group, energy correlated with AF induction. Each patient received 7 ± 6 defibrillator shocks < 15 J and 4 ± 2 shocks ≥ 15 J, yet AF occurred in only 2.3% versus 9.6% (P < 0.05) of defibrillator shocks < 15 J and ≥ 15 J, respectively. Of note, AF was not induced with energy < 4 J or > 31 J.
Conclusions : In the epicardial configuration, AF induction is energy dependent, with an apparent lower and upper limit of vulnerability. AF induction by defibrillator shocks delivered through an Endotak lead is very rare, possibly related to an apparent upper limit of vulnerability of less energy, avoidance of thoracotomy, or different energy field distribution.     

Avoid Delivering Therapies for Nonsustained Fast Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator: The ADVANCE III Trial

Introduction: The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate whether a prolonged detection interval for life threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) is able to reduce therapies (Rx) delivered by an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). Until now, only the PREPARE trial demonstrated a reduction of ICD Rx in a cohort of primary prevention patients.
Methods and Results: The ADVANCE III study is a prospective, randomized, parallel trial with 2 arms evaluating different intervals to detect (NID), i.e., 18/24 (as currently used) versus 30/40. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate a 20% reduction of ICD Rx (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) delivered to terminate spontaneous VT with a cycle length ≤320 ms in patients with Class I-IIA indication for ICD therapy, regardless of cardiac resynchronization capabilities. The worldwide investigation started in spring 2008 and is expected to be finished in 2011.
Conclusions: The ADVANCE III trial is the first randomized investigation evaluating the reduction of ICD Rx for fast VT due to a prolongation of NID in a general ICD patient cohort.     

Is There Any Indication for an Intracardiac Defibrillator for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation?

ICD for Treatment of AF. The experience gained using intracardiac cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias has prompted the development of an automatic atrial defibrillator capable of detecting and automatically terminating atrial fibrillation (AF). Experimental studies in sheep have shown that it is possible to terminate AF with energies ranging from < 1 to 7 joules [J], using biphasic shocks. The best electrode configuration using intracardiac catheters and/or a subcutaneous patch was two catheters, one in the right atrium and the other in the coronary sinus. Current studies in man focus on the answers to three questions. First, can the experimental results of atrial defibrillation derived from healthy anesthetized sheep without spontaneous AF be extrapolated to AF in man with areas of fibrosis within the atria and/or underlying heart disease in 80% of cases? Preliminary studies in man suggest that cardioversion of AF of short duration is feasible using a mean energy of 2 J. Second, are these energies well tolerated in an awake nonsedated patient? Energies < 1 J were well tolerated, but pain resulting from higher energies needs further investigation. Third, is low-energy atrial defibrillation safe, i.e., is there a risk of ventricular arrhythmias induced by an atrial shock? Experimental results in sheep have shown that the risk of R wave synchronized shock to induce ventricular arrhythmias was only present when the preceding RR interval was shorter than 300 msec. The risk of proarrhythmia in man is undergoing evaluation and must be sufficiently low (< 0.1) before sanctioning implantation of a stand-alone (without associated ventricular defibrillator) automatic atrial defibrillator. Preliminary data on 1212 shocks showed no proarrhythmia. There is definitely a significant group of patients with attacks of AF (Class IIIB or IIIC) that are resistant to antiar-rhythmic therapy. Another group of symptomatic patients may have infrequent attacks, or poorly tolerated (syncope or heart failure) or long-lasting attacks requiring medical intervention and/or hospitalization (Class IB, IIB), for whom an automatic atrial defibrillator may be a valuable option. The alternative therapies could be either catheter ablation of the AV node with implantation of a pacemaker or selective surgery. Most of the technical problems related to AF detection and reliable atrial defibrillation have been solved. However, clinical investigations are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new and exciting therapeutic modality.     

Is the Automatic Atrial Defibrillator a Promising Approach?

Automatic Atrial Defibrillator. Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia, accounting for more consumption of medical resources than any other arrhythmia. The impact of the disease results from the combination of a loss of atrial contraction, and atrial control over cardiac rate. Studies in animals demonstrated the basic feasibility of atrial defibrillation using electrodes passed intravenously. Subsequent studies in patients confirmed that low-energy shocks were effective in converting atrial fibrillation and were safe if delivered synchronous to the R wave in the absence of a short preceding RR interval. Preliminary experience suggests that a small implanted device might provide beneficial therapy for patients with recurring episodes of persistent, drug-refractory, atrial fibrillation.     

Effects of Procainamide and Lidocaine on Defibrillation Energy Requirements in Patients Receiving Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices

Effects of Procainamide and Lidocaine on Defibrillation. intntduction: In acute canine studies, lidocaine. but not prucainamidc, increases defibrillation energy requirements. We evaluated the effects of lidocaine or procainamide on defihrillation energy requirements in 27 patients undergoing intraoperative testing fur implantable cardioverter dcfibrillator device placement.
Methods and Results: Patients were tested off antiarrhythmic drugs and again following either lidocaine (200 to 250 mg loading and 3 mg/min maintenance infusions) or procainamide (1 gm loading and 3 to 4 mg/min maintenance infusions). The defibrillation testing protocol consisted of initial testing at 15 J, followed by higher or lower energies to determine the lowest energy producing three consecutive successful defibrillations. Overall, the mean defibrillation energy increased from 14 ± 5 J to 18 ± 7 J during lidocaine (plasma concentration 5.1 ± 1.6 μ/mL; P < 0.02) but were similar at baseline (12 ± 5 J) and during procainamide infusion (13 ± 6 J) (plasma concentration: procainamide 10.7 ± 7.2 μ/rnl.; N-acetyl procainamide 1.0 ± 0.4 μ/niL). A positive linear correlation was found between lidocaine plasma concentration and percent change in defibrillation energy (lidocaine: r = 0.61; P = 0.01). Procainamide raised the defibrillation energy in three patients, two with supra therapeutic plasma concentrations. The increase in defibrillation energy equaled or exceeded 25 J in four patients after lidocaine and in one patient after procainamide.
Conclusion: The data suggest that at high plasma concentrations, lidocaine and procainamide adversely affect defibrillation energy requirements consistent with an adverse, concentration-dependent effect of sodium channel blockade on defibrillation energy requirements in patients.     

Implantable Atrial Defibrillator and Detection of Atrial Flutter

The implantable atrial defibrillator (IAD) is designed to detect and treat atrial fibrillation (AF) with low energy synchronized shocks. A patient with a history of persistent AF was implanted with an IAD after ineffective treatment with procainamide and sotalol. Through four months of follow-up, the IAD performed appropriate detection and treatment of AF. During the fifth month, the patient was put on flecainide in an attempt to minimize the AF recurrence rate. On flecainide the patient experienced typical atrial flutter which required IAD reprogramming for appropriate detection and therapy delivery. This case report examines the optimization of the IAD to detect atrial flutter. Six months of follow-up after optimization the IAD has shown appropriate detection of both atrial flutter and AF. During the entire follow-up period the IAD had appropriate detection of sinus rhythm (no false positive detection, i.e. sinus rhythm as AF).     

Effect of Atrial Tachyarrhythmia Duration on Percentage of Time with Atrial Pacing in Pacemaker Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial pacing can prevent the recurrence of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) in pacemaker patients. The aim of the study was to determine in pacemaker patients the effect of AT duration on the percentage of time with atrial pacing by programming the same setting twice. METHODS: In 14 pacemaker patients with paroxysmal AT the dual-chamber pacemaker was programmed to identical parameters for two consecutive follow-up periods. The pacemakers were interrogated after three months to determine the percentage of time with atrial pacing relative to the total time of follow-up periods and the AT duration (atrial rates >150 bpm). The two three-month follow-up periods were compared to each other. The differences between the two follow-up periods were determined for the percentage of time with atrial pacing as well as for the AT duration. To assess the relationship between atrial pacing and AT duration, the differences between the two follow-up periods for atrial pacing and AT duration were correlated to each other. In addition, the percentage of atrial pacing was corrected for AT duration. RESULTS: Median percentage of atrial pacing relative to the complete follow-up period was 73% after the first and 76% after the second period and median AT duration 21% and 18%, respectively (not significantly different). The differences between the first and second study period were 1% for atrial pacing and -2% for AT duration. The percentage of atrial pacing and AT duration were inversely related together with a significant correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 ( p = 0.0001). After atrial pacing was corrected for AT duration, the percentage of atrial pacing relative to the time in sinus rhythm was significantly higher with a median of 93% for the first and second period ( p = 0.005). The correlation coefficient between the percentage of atrial pacing relative to the time in sinus rhythm and AT duration was r = 0.08 (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of time with atrial pacing can be underestimated in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and should be carefully interpreted in relation to AT duration.     

Feasibility of Atrial Sensing Via a Free-Floating Single-Pass Defibrillation Lead for Dual-Chamber Defibrillators

Background: Detection and misclassification of rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation (AF) and marked sinus tachycardia by implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) can result in the delivery of inappropriate therapies. Continuous atrial sensing may improve the differentiation between supraventricular and ventricular tachycardia. The present approach is to implant a separate atrial pacing lead connected to a dual-chamber defibrillator. We hypothesized that a free-floating single-pass defibrillation lead reliably senses the atrial electrical activity. The aim of the study was to assess during implantation the efficacy of a custom-built free-floating single-pass defibrillation lead and to record sinus rhythm (SR), induced AF, and atrial flutter (Afl). Methods: The free-floating single-pass defibrillation lead (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) had an atrial bipole with 10 mm spacing and a distance between the atrial bipole and the electrode tip of 13.5, 15 or 17-cm. The lead was temporarily implanted in 15 patients during an ICD implantation. Fifteen seconds recordings were made during SR and after the induction of AF and Afl as well as during induced ventricular fibrillation. The amplitude and the time that the amplitude was less than 0.3 mV were assessed. Results: The amplitude during SR (2.1 ± 1.4 mV) was significantly higher compared with the amplitudes for Afl (1.3 ± 0.5 mV; p < 0.02) and AF (0.7 ± 0.5 mV; p < 0.001). Low amplitudes were not observed during SR and rarely during Afl (1.6 ± 3.1%), but they were observed 19.9 ± 15.9% of the time during AF (p < 0.05). The correlation coefficients between SR and AF amplitudes were r = 0.25, between SR and Afl amplitudes r = 0.31, and between AF and Afl amplitudes r = 0.41. During the ventricular fibrillation conversion test 9 patients were in continuous SR. The P-wave amplitude before the induction of ventricular fibrillation was 2.1 ± 1.4 mV. The signal during ventricular fibrillation decreased to 1.1 ± 0.7 mV and increased immediately after the termination of ventricular fibrillation to 1.6 ± 0.8 mV. Conclusions: The recorded unfiltered signals indicate that SR as well as AF and Afl can immediately be detected after the implantation of the new free-floating single-pass defibrillation lead. High signal amplitude during SR did not predict high amplitude during AF or Afl. During induced ventricular fibrillation the P-wave amplitude decreased intermittently.     

Efficacy of Atrial Antitachycardia Functions for Treating Atrial Fibrillation: Observations in Patients with a Dual-Chamber Defibrillator

In patients with conventional indication for ICD implantation, atrial fibrillation may occur in more than 50% during the life-span of the device and may lead to severe adverse events. Dual chamber defibrillators with atrial antitachycardia functions, including prevention algorithms, arrhythmia detection capability and atrial therapy options (antitachy pacing and cardioversion) have been recently introduced. The aim of this review is to examine the effectiveness of these new devices and to identify patients who may benefit. We recently studied 112 patients who received the device because of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Fifty-five percent of them had atrial fibrillation prior to implantation. During the follow-up (one year on average), 27% had at least one episode of sustained atrial tachyarrhythmia. Effectiveness of atrial antitachy pacing was 71% on regular atrial tachycardia and 36% on irregular atrial tachyarrhythmias. Atrial shock efficacy was over 90% when adequately programmed. Interestingly, near half of the episodes started as regular atrial tachycardia and accelerated and became less organized in few minutes. Early delivery of antitachy pacing may increase success rate and decrease the need for atrial shock. Furthermore, it may prevent atrial remodeling and reduce atrial fibrillation burden.Based on our experience, we recommend that all patients with a class I indication for defibrillator implantation (related to risk of ventricular arrhythmias) who have a history of or are at risk of developing atrial tachyarrhythmias should receive a dual chamber defibrillator equipped with atrial antitachycardia functions. Furthermore, patients either with a history of heart failure, with poor functional capacity (functional class III or IV), depressed left ventricular ejection fraction, a need for monitoring of atrial rhythm, or in whom there is some concern about appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmias, may benefit from a single device capable of managing ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias.     

Reproducibility of Ventricular Fibrillation Characteristics in Patients Undergoing Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation

Reproducibility of VF Characteristics. Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the immediate reproducibility of local electrogram characteristics recorded during repeated episodes of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation.
Methods and Results: Power spectral analysis (using a fast Fourier transform algorithm) of electrograms recorded during 3 seconds of VF were analyzed in 24 patients undergoing ICD implantation using a Medtronic Transvene lead. Patients had 2 to 7 episodes of VF that were induced during defibrillation threshold testing. VF was induced by burst pacing (n = 20) or T wave shock (n = 4). Simultaneous electrograms during VF were recorded from a Medtronic Transvene lead with the following configurations: (1) a narrow spaced (12 mm) dedicated bipole used clinically for sensing; (2) a unipolar electrogram from the right ventricular coil; and (3) a widely spaced (18.3 mm) integrated bipole using the distal tip and the coil. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were determined to examine the reproducibility of these VF characteristics among VF episodes in each patient. Recordings from both bipolar configurations had ICCs from 0.40 to 0.55, whereas unipolar recordings ICCs were below 0.40. Reproducibility was similar for dedicated and integrated recordings.
Conclusions: Frequency characteristics of repeated episodes of VF induced in the same subjects show fair-to-good but not excellent reproducibility. Bipolar recordings were far more reproducible than unipolar recordings, but both bipolar configurations had similar reproducibility. These findings have implications for both the pathophysiology of induced VF and the design of VF detection algorithms.     

Optimization of atrial defibrillation with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, but the optimal shocking configuration is unknown. The objective of this prospective study was to compare atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with three shocking configurations that are available with standard ICD leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of shocking configurations on atrial DFTs in 58 patients. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV) and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (Can). In the first 33 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad (RV --> SVC + Can) and unipolar (RV --> Can) shocking pathways. In the next 25 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad and the proximal triad (SVC --> RV + Can) configurations. Delivered energy at DFT was significantly lower with the ventricular triad compared to the unipolar configuration (4.7 +/- 3.7 J vs 10.1 +/- 9.5 J, P < 0.001). Peak voltage and shock impedance also were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in DFT energy when the ventricular triad and proximal triad shocking configurations were compared (3.6 +/- 3.0 J vs 3.4 +/- 2.9 J for ventricular and proximal triad, respectively, P = NS). Although shock impedance was reduced by 13% with the proximal triad (P < 0.001), this effect was offset by an increased current requirement (10%). CONCLUSION: The ventricular triad is equivalent or superior to other possible shocking pathways for atrial defibrillation afforded by a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system. Because the ventricular triad is also the most efficacious shocking pathway for ventricular defibrillation, this pathway should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular defibrillators.     

Lack of benefit of an active pectoral pulse generator on atrial defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads, which has led to the development of combined atrial and ventricular devices. For ventricular defibrillation, use of an active pectoral electrode (active can) in the shocking pathway markedly reduces defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). However, the effect of an active pectoral can on atrial defibrillation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of two shock configurations on atrial DFTs in 33 patients. The lead system evaluated was a dual-coil transvenous defibrillation lead with a left pectoral pulse generator emulator. Shocks were delivered either between the right ventricular coil and proximal atrial coil (lead) or between the right ventricular coil and an active can in common with the atrial coil (active can). Delivered energy at DFT was 4.2 +/- 4.1 J in the lead configuration and 5.0 +/- 3.7 J in the active can configuration (P = NS). Peak current was 32% higher with an active can (P < 0.01), whereas shock impedance was 18% lower (P < 0.001). Moreover, a low threshold (< or = 3 J) was observed in 61% of subjects in the lead configuration but in only 36% in the active can configuration (P < 0.05). There were no clinical predictors of the atrial DFT. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that low atrial DFTs can be achieved using a transvenous ventricular defibrillation lead. Because no benefit was observed with the use of an active pectoral electrode for atrial defibrillation, programmable shock vectors may be useful for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators.     

Effectiveness of Rapid Atrial Pacing for Termination of Drug Refractory Atrial Fibrillation: Results of a Dual Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Trial

There is increasing interest in the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to manage atrial tachyarrhythmias. Although device-based shock therapy is highly effective in terminating persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias, atrial overdrive pacing may also be useful, particularly when this therapy is applied early after the onset of an arrhythmia. A dual-chamber ICD (Medtronic 7250 Jewel AF(R)) has been studied in 267 patients with drug-refractory symptomatic AF. The patients were enrolled as part of multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device to manage atrial tachyarrhythmias in the absence of a standard ventricular ICD indication. The device discriminates atrial tachycardia (AT) from atrial fibrillation (AF) based on cycle length and regularity, and employs multiple methods of atrial overdrive pacing as well as shocks to terminate tachyarrhythmia episodes. Patients were followed for an average of 15.8 +/- 9.3 months. A majority (63%) of patients presented with a history of persistent AF and 34% presented with a history of paroxysmal AF. The pacing therapies terminated 54% of AT episodes and 27% of AF episodes. In patients with persistent AF, 75% of the AT/AF episodes that were successfully terminated by pacing lasted 相似文献   

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器患者术后电风暴的预防和处理

电风暴最初提出于90年代,是指在一段相对较短的时间范围内,出现多次室性心动过速(室速)/心室颤动(室颤)发作。2006年《室性心律失常的诊疗和心脏性猝死预防指南》(ACC/AHA/ESC)定义的电风暴是指24h内自发的室速/室颤≥2次,并需要紧急治疗的临床症候群[1]。埋藏式心脏复律除颤器     

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy for Life-Threatening Arrhythmias in Young Patients

Objectives: This study examined the indications, efficacy and outcomes of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use in the pediatric population. Background: ICDs are first-line therapy for adults resuscitated from sudden cardiac death (SCD) or at high risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Use of ICDs in children and young adults is infrequent and there are few data regarding this group. Methods: We abstracted and analyzed data for all patients in whom ICDs were implanted. Results: A total of 38 devices were implanted in 27 patients. Age ranged from 6 to 26 years (mean, 14) and weight ranged from 16 to 124 kg (mean, 47). Diagnoses included long QT syndrome (9), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [6], repaired congenital heart disease [5];, and idiopathic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation [4]. Indications comprised resuscitated SCD [15], syncope [9], and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia [3]. Initial device placement was infraclavicular in 13, abdominal in 13 and intrathoracic in 1. Epicardial leads were used with 5 systems. A single coil lead was used in 17. Seven patients, all previously resuscitated from SCD, experienced 88 appropriate successful discharges. There were 6 inappropriate discharges in 3 patients. Mean time to device replacement was 3.1 years (n = 11). Complications included 2 infected systems, 2 lead dislodgments, 2 lead fractures, 1 post-pericardiotomy syndrome, 1 adverse event with defibrillation threshold (DFT); testing, and 1 patient with psychiatric sequelae. No deaths occurred with implanted ICDs. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that ICDs provide safe and effective therapy in young patients. The indications for ICDs as primary preventive therapy remain uncertain.     

Automatic Atrial Anti-Tachy Pacing for the Termination of Spontaneous Atrial Tachyarrhythmias: Clinical Experience with a Novel Dual-Chamber Pacemaker

Automatic atrial anti-tachy pacing (aATP) is a novel approach to treat paroxysmal/persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias in pacemaker patients. To evaluate the efficacy of aATP in terminating spontaneous atrial flutter/tachycardia episodes (AT), a dual-chamber stimulator with extensive diagnostic capabilities and programmable aATP therapies (AT500^TM, Medtronic Inc.) was implanted in 30 patients with conventional pacing indications. During a mean follow-up time of 5.5 (1–12) months, aATP was delivered for 10494 AT. According to automatic device analysis, 8289 AT were treated with success (success-rate 79.0%). On 468 AT stored with the corresponding atrial EGM, an additional manual analysis was performed. The success-rate based on automatic analysis of these AT episodes (73.1%) was comparable to that found for all treated AT (79.0%), but manual EGM analysis revealed that only 209 of the 468 treated AT episodes (44.7%) were actually terminated by aATP. The aATP success-rate in the slower (cycle length 360–270ms) AT detection zone was significantly higher (73.8%, 62/84eps) than in the overlapping, faster (cycle length 270–220ms) AT zone (38.3%, 147/384eps, P<0.01). Conclusions: According to manual analysis, 1. aATP was safe and had a success-rate of 44.7%, 2. aATP success-rate was higher for AT in the slower than in the faster detection zone and 3. automatic analysis overestimated the efficacy of aATP.