|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 44:2362-2367, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.039 © 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |

* Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Department of Statistics, Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Manuscript received June 9, 2004; revised manuscript received August 16, 2004, accepted September 4, 2004.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Luc Jordaens, Department of Clinical Electrophysiology, Bd402, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Email: l.jordaens{at}erasmusmc.nl).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to investigate the performance of single- and dual-chamber tachyarrhythmia detection algorithms.
BACKGROUND: A proposed benefit of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is improved specificity of tachyarrhythmia detection.
METHODS: All ICD candidates received a dual-chamber ICD and were randomized to programmed single- or dual-chamber detection. Of 60 patients (47 male, age 58 ± 14 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%), 29 had single-chamber and 31 had dual-chamber settings. The detection results were corrected for multiple episodes within a patient with the generalized estimating equations method.
RESULTS: A total of 653 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (39 patients) were classified by the investigators; 391 episodes were ventricular tachyarrhythmia (32 patients). All episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmias were appropriately detected in both settings. In 25 patients, 262 episodes of atrial tachyarrhythmias were recorded. Detection was inappropriate for 109 atrial tachyarrhythmia episodes (42%, 18 patients). Rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias was not significantly different between both groups (p = 0.55). Episodes of atrial flutter/tachycardia were significantly more misclassified (p = 0.001). Overall, no significant difference in tachyarrhythmia detection (atrial and ventricular) between both settings was demonstrated (p = 0.77).
CONCLUSIONS: The applied detection criteria in dual-chamber devices do not offer benefits in the rejection of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Discrimination of atrial tachyarrhythmias with a stable atrioventricular relationship remains a challenge.
| ||||||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Almendral, F. Arribas, C. Wolpert, R. Ricci, P. Adragao, E. Cobo, X. Navarro, A. Quesada, and the DATAS Steering Committee and Writing Committee Dual-chamber defibrillators reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with single-chamber devices: results from the DATAS (Dual chamber and Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse events Study) trial Europace, May 1, 2008; 10(5): 528 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Schmidt, S. Asbach, O. Schweika, M. Zehender, C. Bode, and T. S. Faber Atrial fibrillation reduces the atrial impedance amplitude during cardiac cycle: a novel detection algorithm to improve recognition of atrial fibrillation in pacemaker patients Europace, September 1, 2007; 9(9): 812 - 816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Ezekowitz, B. H. Rowe, D. M. Dryden, N. Hooton, B. Vandermeer, C. Spooner, and F. A. McAlister Systematic Review: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Adults with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Ann Intern Med, August 21, 2007; 147(4): 251 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Passman and A. Kadish Sudden Death Prevention With Implantable Devices Circulation, July 31, 2007; 116(5): 561 - 571. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. K. Gehi, D. Mehta, and J. A. Gomes Evaluation and Management of Patients After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shock JAMA, December 20, 2006; 296(23): 2839 - 2847. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. O. Sweeney Overcoming the Defects of a Virtue: Dual-Chamber Versus Single-Chamber Detection Enhancements for Implantable Defibrillator Rhythm Diagnosis: The Detect Supraventricular Tachycardia Study Circulation, June 27, 2006; 113(25): 2862 - 2864. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. A. Friedman, R. L. McClelland, W. R. Bamlet, H. Acosta, D. Kessler, T. M. Munger, N. G. Kavesh, M. Wood, E. Daoud, A. Massumi, et al. Dual-Chamber Versus Single-Chamber Detection Enhancements for Implantable Defibrillator Rhythm Diagnosis: The Detect Supraventricular Tachycardia Study Circulation, June 27, 2006; 113(25): 2871 - 2879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Perings, G. Klein, E. Toft, C. Moro, D. Klug, D. Bocker, H.J. Trappe, T. Korte, and on behalf of the RIONI Investigators The RIONI study rationale and design: validation of the first stored electrograms transmitted via home monitoring in patients with implantable defibrillators. Europace, April 1, 2006; 8(4): 288 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Z. Goldberger, B. Elbel, C. A. McPherson, A. D. Paltiel, and R. Lampert Cost Advantage of Dual-Chamber Versus Single-Chamber Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 6, 2005; 46(5): 850 - 857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. O. Sweeney, M. S. Wathen, K. Volosin, I. Abdalla, P. J. DeGroot, M. F. Otterness, and A. J. Stark Appropriate and Inappropriate Ventricular Therapies, Quality of Life, and Mortality Among Primary and Secondary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients: Results From the Pacing Fast VT REduces Shock ThErapies (PainFREE Rx II) Trial Circulation, June 7, 2005; 111(22): 2898 - 2905. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |