Dorian Paul, Philippon François, Thibault Bernard, Kimber Shane, Sterns Larry, Greene Mary, Newman David, Gelaznikas Robert, Barr Aiala
St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heart Rhythm. 2004 Nov;1(5):540-7. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2004.07.017.
The purpose of this study was to compare rate-only detection to enhanced detection in a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), to discriminate ventricular tachycardia from supraventricular tachycardia.
ICDs are highly effective in treating ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, they frequently deliver inappropriate therapy during supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).
We conducted a randomized clinical trial of detection enhancements in a dual-chamber ICD compared to control (rate-only) detection to discriminate VT from SVT. Detection enhancements included a specific standardized protocol identical for all patients for programming rate stability, sudden onset, atrial-to-ventricular relationship (sudden onset = 9% and rate stability = 10 ms; V > A "on"), and "sustained rate duration" (3 minutes). The primary endpoint was the time to first inappropriate therapy classified by a blinded events committee.
One hundred forty-nine patients had a history of sustained VT or VF. Mean age (+/- SD) was 60 +/- 13 years; 83% were male, and mean ejection fraction was 35 +/- 15%. Control (n = 70) and "enhanced" (n = 79) groups did not differ with regard to age, sex, ejection fraction, or primary arrhythmia. The proportion of patients free of inappropriate therapy over time was significantly higher in the enhanced versus the control group (hazard ratio = 0.47, P = .011). High-energy shocks were reduced from 0.58 +/- 4.23 shocks/patient/month in the control group to 0.04 +/- 0.15 shocks/patient/month in the enhanced group (P = .0425). No patient programmed per protocol failed to receive therapy for VT detected by the ICD (422 VT episodes).
Standardized programming in a dual-chamber ICD leads to a significant and clinically important reduction in inappropriate therapies compared to rate-only detection and does not compromise safety with respect to appropriate treatment of VT.
本研究旨在比较双腔植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)中单纯心率检测与增强检测对室性心动过速和室上性心动过速的鉴别能力。
ICD在治疗室性心动过速(VT)或心室颤动(VF)方面非常有效。然而,它们在室上性心动过速(SVT)期间经常进行不适当的治疗。
我们进行了一项随机临床试验,比较双腔ICD中检测增强与对照(单纯心率)检测对VT和SVT的鉴别能力。检测增强包括针对所有患者的特定标准化方案,用于设置心率稳定性、突发起始、房室关系(突发起始=9%,心率稳定性=10毫秒;V>A“开启”)和“持续心率持续时间”(3分钟)。主要终点是由盲法事件委员会分类的首次不适当治疗时间。
149例患者有持续性VT或VF病史。平均年龄(±标准差)为60±13岁;83%为男性,平均射血分数为35±15%。对照组(n=70)和“增强”组(n=79)在年龄、性别、射血分数或原发性心律失常方面无差异。随着时间的推移,增强组无不当治疗的患者比例显著高于对照组(风险比=0.47,P=.011)。高能量电击从对照组的0.58±4.23次/患者/月降至增强组的0.04±0.15次/患者/月(P=.0425)。按照方案编程的患者中,没有患者未接受ICD检测到的VT治疗(422次VT发作)。
与单纯心率检测相比,双腔ICD中的标准化编程可显著且临床上重要地减少不适当治疗,并且在VT的适当治疗方面不影响安全性。