Deisenhofer I, Kolb C, Ndrepepa G, Schreieck J, Karch M, Schmieder S, Zrenner B, Schmitt C
Deutsches Herzzentrum München and I. Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2001 Feb;12(2):134-42. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2001.00134.x.
Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias are the main cause of inappropriate therapies in patients with conventional single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (VVI-ICD). It was anticipated that dual chamber cardioverter defibrillators (DDD-ICD), with their capacity to analyze atrial and ventricular rhythm, could substantially reduce inappropriate therapies.
Our prospective study included 92 patients (87 men; mean age 61 +/- 12.7 years) who were randomly assigned to a VVI-ICD (45 patients) or a DDD-ICD (47 patients). Both groups were followed for 7.5 +/- 3.5 and 7.6 +/- 4.1 months, respectively. During the follow-up period, overall 725 ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes were recorded in 45 (49%) of 92 patients. Of these episodes, 404 (56%) occurred in the VVI-ICD group and 321 (44%) episodes occurred in the DDD-ICD group. Twenty-three (51%) patients in the VVI-ICD group and 22 (47%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.8) developed VT/VF. Overall, 73 (10%) of 725 treated episodes were inappropriate in 6 (13%) patients in the VVI group and in 10 (21%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.2). There were 22 (31%) inappropriately treated episodes in the VVI-ICD group and 51 (69%) in the DDD-ICD group. Thirty-two of the 51 inappropriate episodes in the DDD-ICD patients resulted from intermittent atrial sensing problems that led to failure of the respective dual chamber algorithms. Nonfatal complications occurred in 6 (13%) patients in the VVI-ICD group and in 3 (6%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.7).
We conclude that the implanted DDD-ICD and conventional VVI-ICD are equally safe and effective for therapy of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although DDD-ICDs allow better rhythm classification, the applied detection algorithms do not offer benefits in avoiding inappropriate therapies during supraventricular tachyarrhythmias.
室上性快速心律失常是传统单腔植入式心脏复律除颤器(VVI-ICD)患者不适当治疗的主要原因。预计双腔心脏复律除颤器(DDD-ICD)凭借其分析心房和心室节律的能力,可大幅减少不适当治疗。
我们的前瞻性研究纳入了92例患者(87例男性;平均年龄61±12.7岁),他们被随机分配至VVI-ICD组(45例患者)或DDD-ICD组(47例患者)。两组分别随访7.5±3.5个月和7.6±4.1个月。在随访期间,92例患者中的45例(49%)共记录到725次室性心动过速(VT)/心室颤动(VF)发作。其中,404次发作(56%)发生在VVI-ICD组,321次发作(44%)发生在DDD-ICD组。VVI-ICD组23例(51%)患者和DDD-ICD组22例(47%)患者发生VT/VF(P = 0.8)。总体而言,725次治疗发作中的73次(10%)在VVI组的6例(13%)患者和DDD-ICD组的10例(21%)患者中属于不适当治疗(P = 0.2)。VVI-ICD组有22次(31%)治疗不适当发作,DDD-ICD组有51次(69%)。DDD-ICD患者的51次不适当发作中有32次是由于间歇性心房感知问题导致相应双腔算法失效。VVI-ICD组6例(13%)患者和DDD-ICD组3例(6%)患者发生非致命并发症(P = 0.7)。
我们得出结论,植入的DDD-ICD和传统VVI-ICD在治疗危及生命的室性快速心律失常方面同样安全有效。尽管DDD-ICD能更好地进行节律分类,但所应用的检测算法在避免室上性快速心律失常期间的不适当治疗方面并无益处。