Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial
- PMID: 23652522
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.4598
Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial
Erratum in
- JAMA. 2013 Jun 26;309(24):2552
Abstract
Importance: Using more intervals to detect ventricular tachyarrhythmias has been associated with reducing unnecessary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies.
Objective: To determine whether using 30 of 40 intervals to detect ventricular arrhythmias (VT) (long detection) during spontaneous fast VT episodes reduces antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and shock delivery more than 18 of 24 intervals (standard detection).
Design, setting, and participants: Randomized, single-blind, parallel-group trial that enrolled 1902 primary and secondary prevention patients (mean [SD] age, 65 [11] years; 84% men; 75% primary prevention ICD) with ischemic and nonischemic etiology undergoing first ICD implant at 1 of 94 international centers (March 2008-December 2010).
Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to programming with long- (n = 948) or standard-detection (n = 954) intervals.
Main outcomes and measures: Total number of ATPs and shocks delivered for all episodes (primary outcomes) and inappropriate shocks, mortality, and syncopal rate (secondary outcomes).
Results: During a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range, 11-13), long-detection group had 346 delivered therapies (42 therapies per 100 person-years, 95% CI, 38-47) vs 557 in the standard-detection group (67 therapies per 100 person-years [95% CI, 62-73]; incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.78]; P < .001). The long- vs the standard-detection group experienced 23 ATPs per 100 person-years (95% CI, 20-27) vs 37 ATPs per 100 person-years (95% CI, 33-41; IRR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.47-0.72]; P < .001); 19 shocks per 100 person-years (95% CI, 16-22) vs 30 shocks per 100 person-years (95% CI, 26-34; IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.59-1.01]; P = .06), with a significant difference in the probability of therapy occurrence (P < .001); and a reduction in first occurrence of inappropriate shock (5.1 per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 3.7-6.9] vs 11.6 [95% CI, 9.4-14.1]; IRR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]; P = .008). Mortality (5.5 [95% CI, 4.0-7.2] vs 6.3 [95% CI, 4.8-8.2] per 100 patient-years; HR, 0.87; P = .50) and arrhythmic syncope rates (3.1 [95% CI, 2.6-4.6] vs 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.1] per 100 patient-years; IRR, 1.60 [95% CI, 0.76-3.41]; P = .22) did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusions and relevance: Among patients receiving an ICD, the use of a long- vs standard-detection interval resulted in a lower rate of ATP and shocks, and inappropriate shocks. This programming strategy may be an appropriate alternative.
Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00617175.
Comment in
-
Reducing shocks and improving outcomes with implantable defibrillators.JAMA. 2013 May 8;309(18):1937-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5561. JAMA. 2013. PMID: 23652525 No abstract available.
-
Device therapy: ADVANCEs in ICD programming.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013 Jul;10(7):365. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.79. Epub 2013 May 28. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013. PMID: 23712103 No abstract available.