Stroobandt Roland X, Duytschaever Mattias F, Strisciuglio Teresa, Van Heuverswyn Frederic E, Timmers Liesbeth, De Pooter Jan, Knecht Sébastien, Vandekerckhove Yves R, Kucher Andreas, Tavernier Rene H
Heart Center, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Cardiology, Sint-Jan Hospital Bruges, Bruges, Belgium.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jun;42(6):583-594. doi: 10.1111/pace.13610. Epub 2019 Mar 26.
There are anecdotal reports of sudden death despite a functional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We sought to describe scenarios leading to fatal or near-fatal outcome due to inappropriately inhibited ICD therapy in devices programmed with single-chamber detection criteria.
Programmed settings, episode lists, and intracardiac electrograms from 24 patients with a life-threatening event (n = 12) or fatal outcome (n = 12) related to failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were used to clarify the underlying scenario.
Fifty episodes of failed ventricular arrhythmia detection were identified and categorized into six scenarios: (1) spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a rate below the detection limits, (2) misclassification of polymorphic VT (PVT) or VF as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), (3) misclassification of VT/VF as cluster of nonsustained VT episodes, (4) misclassification of monomorphic VT (MVT) as SVT, (5) inappropriate shock abortion, and (6) false termination detection. These scenarios occurred respectively 6, 9, 3, 9, 8, and 15 times. In 9/9 (100%) patients with PVT/VF classified as SVT, rate stability was active for rates ranging from 222 to 250 beats/min. MVT detected as SVT was due to the sudden onset criterion in 7/9 (78%) patients and twice a consequence of the rate stability criterion active for rates ranging from 200 to 250 beats/min.
We describe six scenarios leading to failure of ventricular arrhythmia detection in a single-chamber detection setting withholding life-saving therapy. These scenarios are more likely to occur with high-rate programming and long detection times, especially if combined with rate stability and sudden onset.
有一些传闻称,尽管植入了具有除颤功能的植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD),仍有猝死情况发生。我们试图描述在采用单腔检测标准编程的设备中,因ICD治疗被不当抑制而导致致命或近乎致命结果的情况。
使用24例与室性心律失常检测失败相关的危及生命事件(n = 12)或致命结果(n = 12)患者的编程设置、事件列表和心内电图,以阐明潜在情况。
共识别出50次室性心律失常检测失败事件,并分为六种情况:(1)自发室性心动过速(VT)或室颤(VF),其速率低于检测极限;(2)将多形性VT(PVT)或VF误分类为室上性心动过速(SVT);(3)将VT/VF误分类为非持续性VT发作簇;(4)将单形性VT(MVT)误分类为SVT;(5)不适当的电击中止;(6)错误的终止检测。这些情况分别发生了6次、9次、3次、9次、8次和15次。在9/9(100%)例被分类为SVT的PVT/VF患者中,速率稳定性在222至250次/分钟的速率范围内处于激活状态。被检测为SVT的MVT在7/9(78%)例患者中是由于突发起始标准,有两次是速率稳定性标准在200至250次/分钟的速率范围内激活的结果。
我们描述了在单腔检测设置中导致室性心律失常检测失败并中断挽救生命治疗的六种情况。这些情况在高心率编程和长检测时间时更易发生,特别是当与速率稳定性和突发起始相结合时。