loading page

Programming tachycardia zones to reduce avoidable defibrillator shocks
  • +7
  • Rita Marinheiro,
  • Leonor Parreira,
  • Pedro Amador,
  • Dinis Mesquita,
  • Cláudia Lopes,
  • Artur Lopes,
  • Ana Esteves,
  • José Farinha,
  • Marta Fonseca,
  • Rui Caria
Rita Marinheiro
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Leonor Parreira
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Pedro Amador
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Dinis Mesquita
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Cláudia Lopes
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Artur Lopes
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Ana Esteves
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
José Farinha
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Marta Fonseca
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile
Rui Caria
Centro Hospitalar de Setubal EPE
Author Profile

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Most of avoidable defibrillator therapies can be reduced by evidence-based programming, but defining tachycardia configurations across all device manufacturers is not straightforward. The aims were to determine if a uniform programming of tachycardia zones, independently of the manufacturer, result in a lower rate of avoidable shocks in primary-prevention heart failure (HF) patients and also if programming high-rate or delayed therapies can have some benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort with historical controls. HF patients with a primary-prevention indication for a defibrillator were randomized to receive one of two new programming configurations (high-rate or delayed therapies). A historical cohort of patients with conventional programming was analyzed for comparison. The primary endpoint was any therapy [shock or anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP)]. Secondary endpoints were appropriate shocks, appropriate ATP, appropriate therapies, inappropriate shocks, syncope and death. 89 patients were assigned for new programming group [high rate (n=47) or delayed therapy (n=42)]. They were compared with 94 historical patients with conventional programming. During a mean follow-up of 20±7 months, the new programming was associated with a reduction of any therapy (HR = 0.265, 95% CI 0.121-0.577, p=0.001), even after adjustment. Aproppriate ATP and any shock were also reduced. Syncope did not occur. Sudden, cardiovascular and all-cause deaths were not different between the groups. In the new programming group, neither high-rate nor delayed programming were better than the other. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, programming tachycardia zones homogeneously across all manufacturers was possible and resulted in a lower rate of therapies, shocks and appropriate ATP.