Search

Background The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important approach for better risk stratification, applied to patients considered to be at high risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Patients with implanted pacemakers may also become candidates for use of the WCD. However, there is a potential risk that pacemaker signals may mislead the WCD detection algorithm and cause inappropriate WCD shock delivery. The aim of the study was to test the impact of different types of pacing, various right ventricular (RV) lead positions, and pacing modes for potential misleading of the WCD detection algorithm. Methods Sixty patients with implanted pacemakers received the WCD for a short time and each pacing mode (AAI, VVI, and DDD) was tested for at least 30 seconds in unipolar and bipolar pacing configuration. In case of triggering the WCD detection algorithm and starting the sequence of arrhythmia alarms, shock delivery was prevented by pushing of the response buttons. Results In six of 60 patients (10%), continuous unipolar pacing in DDD mode triggered the WCD detection algorithm. In no patient, triggering occurred with bipolar DDD pacing, unipolar and bipolar AAI, and VVI pacing. Triggering was independent of pacing amplitude, RV pacing lead position, and pulse generator implantation site. Conclusion Unipolar DDD pacing bears a high risk of false triggering of the WCD detection algorithm. Other types of unipolar pacing and all bipolar pacing modes do not seem to mislead the WCD detection algorithm. Therefore, patients with no reprogrammable unipolar DDD pacing should not become candidates for the WCD.

Remote monitoring is useful for management of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients regarding detection of arrhythmias and probable device or lead failure. We report the case of a patient who died suddenly while being on remote monitoring. The ICD was not retrieved postmortem. Even though clinical circumstances were suspicious of an arrhythmic death, this was excluded due to a distinctive manufacturer feature of the system.

Background: Patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) often have severely impaired left ventricular function and a poor prognosis. Having an ICD in situ effectively denies them the possibility of a quick, arrhythmic death. It is still unclear if and when the end of life and device deactivation should be discussed with patients and how much patients want to know prior to ICD implantation. Methods: Patients with an active ICD for chronic heart failure were interviewed regarding their attitude toward the ICD, their recollection of the consent procedure, and how they felt the end of life should be discussed with ICD patients (n = 54). Patients who had received ICD therapies (n = 25) were reviewed as a subgroup with extended questions regarding attitudes toward device deactivation. Results: Fifty-four patients were recruited. Most patients were not aware that the ICD could be deactivated. The vast majority of patients (84%) wanted to be involved in the deactivation decision; 40% felt this discussion should be prior to ICD implantation but others felt the discussion should only occur if the patient was terminally ill (16%) or in the last few days of life (5%). Conclusion: Patients with ICDs are routinely counseled about the benefits of ICDs, but options for device deactivation are not well understood by patients. Most patients would like to be involved in deactivation decisions and we feel this should be discussed well in advance. (PACE 2011; 34:1628–1633)

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce sudden arrhythmic death risk but when these devices are programmed DDD and pace in the right ventricle (RV), they can be associated with increased mortality and heart failure morbidity compared to an ICD programmed to back-up RV. An ideal ICD would provide effective treatment for life-threatening tachyarrhythmias, reduce unnecessary RV pacing and maintain AV synchrony. The Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing with AV Search Hysteresis (AVSH) in ICDs (INTRINSIC RV) study will assess whether an ICD programmed to DDDR with AVSH is equal to an ICD programmed to VVI with regard to mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and several predefined secondary enpoints. AVSH allows intrinsic AV conduction beyond the programmed AV delay to help minimize ventricular pacing. INTRINSIC RV, a multi-center, randomized, prospective trial will enroll >1,200 participants who receive a Guidant VITALITY AVT ICD. ICDs are programmed initially to DDDR AVSH 60–130. Then, after a week, if the %RV pacing

The ICD can effectively recognize and treat ventricular arrhythmias that can lead to sudden death. Sudden death is a major problem in patients awaiting heart transplantation. We reviewed our experience with the ICD in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias waiting for cardiac transplantation. Nineteen patients were included. Seventeen were men, mean age was 54 +/- 11 years (range 17-66) and the left ventricular ejection fraction was 22% +/- 10% (range 9%-46%). After a mean follow-up of 6 +/- 5 months (range 1-20 months), 17 patients reached heart transplantation. One patient died and the other is waiting for a transplant. Before transplantation 71% of patients received an appropriate discharge. The mean time to the first appropriate discharge was 2 +/- 2 months (range < 1-6 months), which was significantly shorter than the mean time to first discharge in the other patients (n = 182) receiving a defibrillator in our center (11 +/- 10 months; range 1-58 months) (P < 0.0004). In conclusion, cardiac transplantation candidates with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias can effectively be protected against sudden arrhythmic death by ICD. These patients have a high incidence of appropriate shocks occurring very early after implantation.

Data on 1,281 patients from the Bilitch impIantabje cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) registry were reviewed to evaluate ICD patient characteristics and survival, and the impact of ICD shock occurrence on outcome. The mean ejection fraction was 34.3%; 78% had coronary disease, 471 patients had at least one shock thought to be appropriate, and 231 patients died. Causes of death included: arrhythmic (41%), nonarrhythmic cardiac (37%), and noncardiac (22%). Cumulative survival from all-cause mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89%, 76%, and 64%; survival from all-cause cardiac death was 93%, 90%, and 76%; survival from arrhythmic death was 96%, 92%, and 87%. Patients who had received a shock had a trend towards a worse long-term prognosis. Shock patients also had a small increase in the prevalence of coronary disease and a somewhat lower ejection fraction than the remainder of the population.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is not absolute and our experience was reviewed to determine the frequency and nature of SCD in this population. The incidence and cause of mortality in 56 consecutive patients, who underwent ICD implantation beginning May 1982 with follow-up through May 19, 1990 were analyzed. Twenty-one patients died, 33% of the mortality was due to SCD, and 52% of deaths may be considered arrhythmic. The cumulative 1, 3, and 5 year SCD survivals were 93%, 89%, and 75%. All seven patients dying of SCD presented initially with SCD, all received previous shocks prior to SCD, and two of the seven patients had devices that were probably inactive at the time of death. We conclude that ICDs reduce but by no means eliminate arrhythmic death, particularly in those at highest risk for SCD. Arrhythmic death remained the most common cause of death in this population.