JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 44:95-98, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.03.051
© 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Becker, R.
Right arrow Articles by Schoels, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Becker, R.
Right arrow Articles by Schoels, W.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY

Patient alert in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: toy or tool?

Ruediger Becker, MD*,*, Jutta Ruf-Richter, RN*, Julia C. Senges-Becker, MD*, Alexander Bauer, MD*, Slawomir Weretka, MD*, Frederik Voss, MD*, Hugo A. Katus, MD* and Wolfgang Schoels, MD*

* University of Heidelberg/Cardiology, Heidelberg, Germany

Manuscript received November 10, 2003; revised manuscript received February 3, 2004, accepted March 16, 2004.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Ruediger Becker, University of Heidelberg/Cardiology, Bergheimer Strasse 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
ruediger_becker{at}med.uni-heidelberg.de

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the utility of patient-alert features in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

BACKGROUND: Various alert features producing acoustic warning signals have been implemented in newer generation ICDs, but their role in early detection of system-related complications has not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS: In 240 patients implanted with Medtronic ICD devices, the following alert features were routinely activated: pacing lead impedance <200 or >2,000 {Omega}, high-voltage lead impedance <10 or >200 {Omega}, low battery voltage (elective replacement indicator), long charge time (>18 s), >3 shocks delivered per episode, and all therapies in a zone delivered. Alert events occurring during follow-up were assessed in relation to actual findings (hospital charts, chest X-rays, ICD printouts including sensing/pacing/defibrillation threshold tests, episode data) to determine incidence, sensitivity, and specificity of the alert function.

RESULTS: During 12.2 ± 8.9 months, 24 alert events occurred in the 240 patients (pacing lead impedance, n = 4; high-voltage lead impedance, n = 7; low battery voltage, n = 1; >3 shocks, n = 6; all therapies, n = 6). A total of 22 serious complications (necessitating reprogramming or device/lead replacement) were observed, 14 of which were primarily identified through a patient alert (lead fracture, n = 11; connector defect, n = 1; T-wave oversensing, n = 1; battery depletion, n = 1). This reflects a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 96% of the alert function for serious complications. With 14 of 24 patient alerts being caused by serious complications, the positive predictive value reached 58%.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient-alert features are a useful additional tool facilitating early detection of serious ICD complications, but they do not substitute for regular ICD follow-up, because of their low sensitivity.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  RV = right ventricle/ventricular
  SVC = superior vena cava
  UPV = unplanned visit
  VF = ventricular fibrillation




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
L. van Erven and M. J Schalij
Troubleshooting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator related problems
Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 649 - 660.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EuropaceHome page
D. Vollmann, L. Luthje, and M. Zabel
Unusual cause for an increase of the sensing integrity counter in a patient with inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy
Europace, May 1, 2007; 9(5): 275 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EuropaceHome page
D. Vollmann, A. Erdogan, E. Himmrich, J. Neuzner, D. Becker, C. Unterberg-Buchwald, J. Sperzel, and for the SAFE Study Investigators
Patient AlertTM to detect ICD lead failure: efficacy, limitations, and implications for future algorithms.
Europace, January 1, 2006; 8(5): 371 - 376.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
J. Auer, R. Berent, and B. Eber
Patient alert and cardiac defibrillators
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2005; 45(6): 966 - 966.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
R. Becker and W. Schoels
Patient alert and cardiac defibrillators: Reply
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2005; 45(6): 966 - 966.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EuropaceHome page
J. C. Senges-Becker, M. Klostermann, R. Becker, A. Bauer, K. E. Siegler, H. A. Katus, and W. Schoels
What is the "Optimal" follow-up schedule for ICD patients?
Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(4): 319 - 326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.