His bundle ablation for supraventricular arrhythmias to avoid spurious shocks of an implanted defibrillator

Atrial fibrillation with fast ventricular response remains a matter of concern in patients treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). A patient with dilated cardiomyopathy, suffering from atrial arrhythmias and recurrent cardiac arrest due to both ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, is presented. Ablation of the AV node by means of low-energy direct-current shocks with subsequent pacemaker implantation was performed before ICD implantation. The patient received shocks after four months, when he had recurrence of AV conduction with a slow ventricular rate. Pacemaker interaction was excluded, and no short ventricular arrhythmias were observed. During electrophysiologic study after electrical conversion of atrial fibrillation, persistent second degree heart block was documented, giving further evidence that atrial arrhythmias were not responsible for the shocks. The patient's functional status remains good after more than 18 months of follow-up.     

Role of antiarrhythmic drugs: frequent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, risk of proarrhythmia, and new drug therapy

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard of care in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy who are at high risk for arrhythmic events and sudden cardiac death. Although an ICD saves life, ICD shocks are emotionally and physically debilitating. Most patients receive adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy to circumvent episodes of recurrent ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drugs including b-blockers, sotalol, amiodarone, and azimilide are effective at reducing the shock burden. This article describes data supporting the need for and potential risks and benefits of adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy and examines the benefits and pitfalls of the same in ICD-implanted patients.     

A new biomarker that predicts ventricular arrhythmia in patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: Galectin-3

IntroductionVentricular arrhythmias are caused by scar tissue in patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. The gold standard imaging technique for detecting scar tissue is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, MRI is not feasible for use as a screening test, and also cannot be used in patients who have received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). In this study, we aimed to assess the association between levels of galectin-3 (Gal-3), which is known to be secreted by scar tissue, and the history of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy who received an ICD.MethodsNineteen healthy controls and 32 patients who had previously undergone VVI-ICD implantation due to ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: the first group including patients who had received no ICD therapies, the second including patients with arrhythmia requiring therapies with no arrhythmia storm, and the third including patients who had arrhythmia storm. We assessed the association between Gal-3 levels and the history of ventricular arrhythmias in these patients.ResultsGal-3 levels were significantly higher in the patient groups than in the control group (p<0.01). Gal-3 levels of patients with arrhythmias requiring ICD therapies were significantly higher than in patients with ICD not requiring therapies (p=0.02). They were also higher in patients with a history of arrhythmia storm than in patients without shocks (p=0.05). Receiver operating curve analysis showed with 84% sensitivity and 75% specificity that Gal-3 levels over 7 ng/ml indicated ventricular arrhythmia that required therapies.ConclusionGal-3 may be used to further improve risk stratification in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who are more prone to developing life-threatening arrhythmias.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks from ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with ischemic heart disease: Preventative measures,shortcomings, cost-effectiveness,and global practice perspectives

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven to be life-saving devices in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who are prone to develop ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation (VF). Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are commonly prescribed in many such patients with ICDs to treat and prevent different forms of arrhythmias in clinical practice. When these patients experience recurrent monomorphic VT despite chronic AADs therapy, or when AAD therapy is contraindicated or not tolerated, and VT storm is refractory to AAD therapy, catheter ablation constitute guideline-based class I indication of treatment. However, what should be the most appropriate strategy to prevent first ICD shock or subsequent multiple shocks from VT/VF in patients with ICM who undergo ICD implantation without prior incidence of cardiac arrest, remains debatable. The purpose of this review is to discuss preventative aspects of ICD shocks for VT and the shortcomings of these measures along with the cost-effectiveness and global perspectives based on the current knowledge of the topic.     

Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy: where are we today? A clinical review

According to the current guidelines, patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) at risk for sudden cardiac death should undergo implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Although ICDs effectively terminate ventricular arrhythmias, the arrhythmogenic substrate remains unchanged or may progress over time, resulting in recurrent ICD shocks. Defibrillator shocks increase mortality and worsen quality of life. Evidence from two prospective randomized trials on outcome in patients with ischaemic heart disease undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) suggests that ablation prevents recurrence of VT and decreases the number of ICD shocks. This review will highlight the recent progress made in the ablative treatment of VT in patients with ICM and NICM.     

Delivery of Noncommitted Shocks for Nonsustained Ventricular Arrhythmias by a New Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator with Abortive Shock Capability

Shock Delivery Despite Abortive Shock Capability. Introduction: To describe the delivery of noncommitted implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks despite self-termination of ventricular arrhythmias. Abortive shock capability should eliminate the delivery of shocks for self-terminating ventricular arrhythmias. The delivery of noncommitted shocks despite abortive shock capability is, therefore, unexpected and previously unreported.
Methods and Results: Among 118 patients who received the Transvene nonthoracotomy lead system and the Jewel ICD (model 7219D), three patients (1.7%) experienced spurious, noncommitted shocks for self-terminating arrhythmias. Only one detection zone (i.e., ventricular fibrillation) had been programmed in the defibrillator in each patient. In all three patients, the ventricular arrhythmias self-terminated during the charging period. One patient received seven shocks during periods of asystole, and the other two patients received one shock each. Two different mechanisms for shock delivery in this setting were identified: one occurring in the absence of electrical activity at the end of the bradycardia escape interval (i.e., associated with bradyarrhytbmias), and the other when two sensed electrical events (i.e., escape beats) occurred during the so-called "synchronization" window of the defibrillator.
Conclusions: In rare patients with the Jewel defibrillator, shocks may be delivered for self-terminating arrhythmias despite abortive shock capability. Patients who are dependent upon pacing from their implanted defibrillator are at particular risk for shock in the aftermath of self-terminating ventricular arrhythmias. Defibrillator programming strategies aimed at eliminating or diminishing the incidence of this problem are discussed.     

T Wave Pacing Inducing Electrical Storm and Multiple Shocks in an ICD-Recipient: A Novel Complication of the Automatic Gain Control Function

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in treating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but it can also have proarrhythmic effect in some cases. We report the case of a 72 years old patient with an ischemic cardiomyopathy in whom an ICD was implanted for a poorly tolerated ventricular tachycardia (Profiles MD—Ventritex). Forty-eight hours after implantation, the patient suddenly received 15 successive shocks. ECG tracings and intracardiac EGM showed the presence of several VT episodes, all induced by the antibradycardia pacing of the ICD: the automatic gain control function of the device failed to detect ventricular premature beats in this patient, leading to a bradycardia pacing falling on the T wave and inducing multiple VTs and shocks.     

Effect of elapsed time from coronary revascularization to implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator on long-term survival in the MADIT-II trial

Coronary Revascularization and Long‐Term Mortality in MADIT‐II. Introduction: Coronary revascularization (CR) may reduce arrhythmia risk and improve long‐term outcome in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of elapsed time from CR on long‐term mortality and arrhythmic risk among patients who receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Methods and Results: We evaluated the risk of 8‐year mortality by elapsed time from CR to ICD implantation (categorized as: no CR; recent CR [<2 years]; or nonrecent CR [≥2 years], and assessed as a continuous measure) among 720 ICD recipients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Trial‐II. At 8years of follow‐up, patients who did not undergo CR and those who underwent nonrecent CR had significantly higher mortality rates than patients who underwent recent CR (54%, 54%, and 36%, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that no‐ and nonrecent CR were associated with respective 48% (P = 0.022) and 67% (P < 0.001) increases in mortality risk compared with recent CR. Assessment of time from CR as a continuous measure showed that every year elapsed from CR was associated with an adjusted 6% increase in 8‐year mortality (P < 0.001), and in respective 6% (P < 0.001) and 6% (P = 0.003) increased risk for in‐trial appropriate ICD therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD shocks. Conclusions: We observed a direct relationship between elapsed time from CR and long‐term mortality following ICD implantation. The favorable long‐term effect on outcome of recent CR may be related to a time‐dependent effect of CR on ventricular arrhythmic burden and the need for appropriate ICD shocks. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. pp. 1‐6)     

Adverse interaction between a left ventricular assist device and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

An increasing number of patients have a coexisting implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to treat ventricular arrhythmias and refractory heart failure, respectively. To date, there have been no published reports of negative interactions between these devices that have impacted appropriate ICD or LVAD function. In this case report, we describe a patient with an LVAD-ICD interaction that necessitated replacement of the implantable defibrillator.     

Single-center experience with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in adults with complex congenital heart disease

Adults with congenital heart disease are at risk of lethal ventricular arrhythmias and are candidates for implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy, yet implant risks, long-term outcomes, and rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies are not well characterized. We reviewed clinical, implantation, and follow-up data on all transvenous ICDs in adults with congenital heart disease at the Mayo Clinic from 1991 through 2008. Seventy-three adults with congenital heart disease received 85 ICDs. Implantation diagnoses included tetralogy of Fallot (44%) and congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (17%). Implantation indication was occurrence of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (secondary prevention) in 36% and prophylactic (primary prevention) in the remainder. There were no major implant-related complications. During follow-up (2.2 ± 2.8 years, range 0 to 15) 11 patients died and 4 patients received heart or heart/lung transplants. An appropriate shock for a ventricular arrhythmia was observed in 19% of patients and an inappropriate shock was observed in 15% of patients. Likelihood of an appropriate shock was associated with increased subpulmonic ventricular pressure. In conclusion, implantation of transvenous ICDs in adults with congenital heart disease is associated with a low risk of implant complications. In this high-risk adult population the rate of inappropriate ICD shocks is low, whereas the likelihood of appropriate therapy for potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias is high. These data suggest overall benefit of ICD therapy in adults with congenital heart disease.     

Electrophysiological device therapy (implantable defibrillators) in older adults

Controlled clinical trials provide incontrovertible evidence that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective to reduce risk of death in select patients with ischemia or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and/or malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Although indications for ICDs have expanded, few data are available regarding their use in the elderly and extreme elderly patients. As increasing numbers of patients become eligible for ICD implantation, questions arise regarding the benefit of ICDs in the elderly, in whom risk of death from comorbidities and nonarrhythmic cardiovascular causes is higher. Although guidelines support ICD implantation in appropriately selected elderly patients, the proper selection of patients remains controversial. Those elderly patients with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy may not be appropriate candidates for ICD implantation, even if they meet standard guidelines. Decisions must be individualized and based on clinical judgment, careful understanding of the risks and benefits of an ICD, and preferences of the patient and the family.     

Long-term follow-up in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

Long‐Term Prognosis in Patients with ARVC. Introduction: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a major cause of sudden cardiac death due to tachyarrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long‐term prognosis in patients with ARVC and the incidence of rapid ventricular arrhythmias during follow‐up. Methods: Thirty ARVC patients (19 male, 63.3%, mean age 48 ± 15 years) fulfilling modified Task Force criteria 2010 were included. Of them, 13 patients (43.3%) received implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Rapid ventricular arrhythmia was defined as electrical storm or the occurrence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a cycle length of 240 ms or less that necessitate shock delivery to 2 or more times within a 24‐hour period. Results: With a mean follow‐up of 68 ± 10 months, 6 patients (20%) with ICD implantation had recurrent rapid VT/VF. One (3.3%) of them died of multiple shocks and SCD, and 5 (16.7%) had multiple ICD therapies due to VT/VF and electrical storm. The interval between the diagnosis of ARVC and occurrence of rapid VT/VF was 13.4 ± 4.9 months. Most (5/6, 83.3%) events of recurrent rapid VT/VF occurred within 2 years. Ablated patients who did not receive an ICD implant were totally free of rapid VT/VF. Conclusions: For patients with ARVC, long‐term prognosis is favorable. During a long‐term follow‐up, patients meeting the criteria for ICD implantation have a higher rate of rapid and potentially life‐threatening arrhythmias. However, early and clustered recurrence of rapid VT/VF in patients with an ICD is common, whereas late occurrence of rapid VT/VF is very rare. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 750‐756, July 2012)     

Predictive Value of QT Dispersion for Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Background: QT dispersion, measured as interlead variability of QT intervals in the surface electrocardiogram, has been demonstrated to provide an indirect measurement of the inhomogeneity of myocardial repolarization as a potential substrate for ventricular arrhythmias. Methods: QT dispersion was measured in the standard 12-lead ECG in 51 patients at the time of implantation of a third generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with automatic electrogram storage capability for electrical events triggering device therapy. In addition, QT dispersion was measured in 100 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All 5 1 study patients with ICD were prospectively followed to determine possible associations between QT dispersion at implant and subsequent spontaneous ICD shocks for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT). Results: Rate-corrected QT dispersion and adjusted QTc dispersion, which takes account of the number of leads measured, were significantly greater in ICD patients compared to controls (76 ± 25 ms vs 46 ± 11 ms, and 24 ± 7 ms vs 14 ± 3 ms respectively, P < 0.0 1). During 15 ± 8 months follow-up, ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurred in 23 (45%) of 51 ICD patients. QTc dispersion and adjusted QTc dispersion were not significantly different between ICD patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias and ICD patients without ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up (74 ± 19 ms versus 77 ± 29 ms, and 23 ± 6 ms vs 25 ± 8 ms respectively). Conclusion: Increased QT dispersion measured in the 12-lead standard ECG does not appear to be a useful marker for future arrhythmic events in a mixed patient population with ICD.     

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Children and Adolescents With Brugada Syndrome

Background

Young patients presenting with symptomatic Brugada syndrome have very high risks for ventricular arrhythmias and should be carefully considered for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. However, this therapy is associated with high rates of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications.

植入型心律转复除颤器不适当识别和治疗的发生率及常见原因

目的 植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）是恶性室性心律失常患者惟一有效的治疗措施。不适当识别和治疗是ICD最常见的并发症，也是导致ICD患者再住院最主要的原因。本文旨在评价本中心的ICD患者不适当识别和治疗的发生率及常见原因。方法 入选2000年1月至2005年12月在本中心因室性心律失常植入ICD并能定期随访的50例患者。根据患者心律失常特点和心功能情况程控ICD的各项参数，定期随访，询问ICD中所有信息，打印、存盘并对储存的腔内电图进行逐条分析，以确定ICD诊断是否准确以及治疗是否有效，判断有无ICD不适当识别和治疗。结果 38例患者在随访期间发生了心律失常事件，ICD共记录到491次室性心动过速（VT）或心室颤动（VF）事件（VT383次，VF108次），其中有11例（22％）发生过≥1次的不适当识别和治疗事件。14．3％（55／383）的VT事件为不适当识别，并导致了78次抗心动过速起搏（ATP）治疗和9次电击治疗。VF不适当识别的发生率为26．9％（28／108），并导致了56次不适当电击事件。结论 植入新一代ICD患者中，不适当识别和治疗发生率仍较高。不适当识别和治疗最常见的原因是心房颤动（房颤）伴快速心室率，占50％以上；其次是由于电磁干扰或肌电干扰所致。     

ICD-Therapie zur Primärprävention des plötzlichen Herztods

ICD therapy represents a major advance in the treatment of patients with severely impaired left ventricular function after myocardial infarction. While an ICD implantation also remains a valuable option late (>5 years) after myocardial infarction, patients early after this event are at a competitive risk of arrhythmogenic and nonarrhythmogenic cardiac death. Prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients early after myocardial infarction, therefore, just converts the mode of death in a significant number of patients from sudden to nonsudden cardiac death (conversion theory). In patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤30% after myocardial infarction, implantation of the ICD should, therefore, be postponed to at least 30–40 days after the event. It is, however, not clear how the risk of sudden cardiac death should be approached during this post infarction phase. Similarly, it is not clear if patients with a reduced LVEF post infarction and additional specific risks (nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, bundle branch block, etc.) beyond this single criterion may also benefit from ICD implantation and which risk factors may be relevant. In any case, ICD therapy should avoid right ventricular pacing and shock discharges whenever possible.     

Design and characteristics of the prophylactic intra-operative ventricular arrhythmia ablation in high-risk LVAD candidates (PIVATAL) trial

Background

The use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in patients with advanced heart failure refractory to optimal medical management has progressed steadily over the past two decades. Data have demonstrated reduced LVAD efficacy, worse clinical outcome, and higher mortality for patients who experience significant ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA). We hypothesize that a novel prophylactic intra-operative VTA ablation protocol at the time of LVAD implantation may reduce the recurrent VTA and adverse events postimplant.

Methods

We designed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized-controlled clinical trial enrolling 100 patients who are LVAD candidates with a history of VTA in the previous 5 years. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to intra-operative VTA ablation (n = 50) versus conventional medical management (n = 50) with LVAD implant. Arrhythmia outcomes data will be captured by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to monitor VTA events, with a uniform ICD programming protocol. Patients will be followed prospectively over a mean of 18 months (with a minimum of 9 months) after LVAD implantation to evaluate recurrent VTA, adverse events, and procedural outcomes. Secondary endpoints include right heart function/hemodynamics, healthcare utilization, and quality of life.

Conclusion

The primary aim of this first-ever randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of intra-operative ablation during LVAD surgery in reducing VTA recurrence and improving clinical outcomes for patients with a history of VTA.     

Cardiac stereotactic radiation therapy for refractory ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular assist devices

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to medical therapy. However, the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) is high in this population, both in the acute and delayed phases after implantation. About one-third of patients implanted with an LVAD will experience sustained VAs, predisposing these patients to worse outcomes and complicating patient management. The combination of pre-existing myocardial substrate and complex electrical remodeling after LVAD implantation account for the high incidence of VAs observed in this population. LVAD patients presenting VAs refractory to antiarrhythmic therapy and catheter ablation procedures are not rare. In such patients, treatment options are extremely limited. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique that delivers precise and high doses of radiation to highly defined targets, reducing exposure to adjacent normal tissue. Cardiac SBRT has recently emerged as a promising alternative with a growing number of case series reporting the effectiveness of the technique in reducing the VA burden in patients with arrhythmias refractory to conventional therapies. The safety profile of cardiac SBRT also appears favorable, even though the current clinical experience remains limited. The use of cardiac SBRT for the treatment of refractory VAs in patients implanted with an LVAD are even more scarce. This review summarizes the clinical experience of cardiac SBRT in LVAD patients and describes technical considerations related to the implementation of the SBRT procedure in the presence of an LVAD.     

Survival benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in left ventricular assist device-supported heart failure patients

BackgroundImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in heart failure (HF). In patients requiring a ventricular assist device (VAD), the benefit from ICD therapy is not well established. The aim of this study was to define the impact of ICD on outcomes in VAD-supported patients.Methods and ResultsWe reviewed data for consecutive adult HF patients receiving VAD as a bridge to transplantation from 1996 to 2003. The primary outcome was survival to transplantation. A total of 144 VADs were implanted [85 left ventricular (LVAD), 59 biventricular (BIVAD), mean age 50 ± 12 years, 77% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 18 ± 9%, 54% ischemic]. Mean length of support was 119 days (range 1–670); 103 patients (72%) survived to transplantation. Forty-five patients had an ICD (33 LVAD, 12 BIVAD). More LVAD patients had an appropriate ICD shock before implantation than after (16 vs 7; P = .02). There was a trend toward higher shock frequency before LVAD implant than after (3.3 ± 5.2 vs 1.1 ± 3.8 shocks/y; P = .06). Mean time to first shock after VAD implant was 129 ± 109 days. LVAD-supported patients with an ICD were significantly more likely to survive to transplantation [1-y actuarial survival to transplantation: LVAD: 91% with ICD vs 57% without ICD (log-rank P = .01); BIVAD: 54% vs 47% (log-rank P = NS)]. An ICD was associated with significantly increased survival in a multivariate model controlling for confounding variables (odds ratio 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.04–6.21; P = .04).ConclusionsShock frequency decreases after VAD implantation, likely owing to ventricular unloading, but appropriate ICD shocks still occur in 21% of patients. An ICD is associated with improved survival in LVAD-supported HF patients.     

Ventricular Arrhythmias in the North American Multidisciplinary Study of ARVC : Predictors,Characteristics, and Treatment

Background

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is associated with sudden cardiac death. However, the selection of patients for implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), as well as programming of the ICD, is unclear.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify predictors, characteristics, and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ARVC.

Methods

The Multidisciplinary Study of Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy established the North American ARVC Registry and enrolled patients with a diagnosis of ARVC. Patients were followed prospectively.

Results

Of 137 patients enrolled, 108 received ICDs. Forty-eight patients had 502 sustained episodes of ventricular arrhythmias, including 489 that were monomorphic and 13 that were polymorphic. In the patients with ICDs, independent predictors of ventricular arrhythmias in follow-up included spontaneous sustained ventricular arrhythmias before ICD implantation and T-wave inversions inferiorly. The only independent predictor for life-threatening arrhythmias, defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥240 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation, was a younger age at enrollment. Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), independent of the cycle length of the VT, was successful in terminating 92% of VT episodes.

Conclusions

In the North American ARVC Registry, the majority of ventricular arrhythmias in follow-up are monomorphic. Risk factors for ventricular arrhythmias were spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias before enrollment and a younger age at ICD implantation. ATP is highly successful in terminating VT, and all ICDs should be programmed for ATP, even for rapid VT.