Why the study?
Does an algorithm requiring all R-R intervals to be shorter than TDI reduce the misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation as ventricular tachycardia compared to an algorithm requiring only a proportion of R-R intervals in ICDs?
Does an algorithm requiring all R-R intervals to be shorter than TDI reduce the misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation as ventricular tachycardia compared to an algorithm requiring only a proportion of R-R intervals in ICDs?
ICD algorithms requiring all R-R intervals to be shorter than the tachycardia detection interval are less susceptible to inappropriate detection of atrial fibrillation as ventricular tachycardia.
Inappropriate detection of atrial fibrillation as ventricular tachycardia by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may result in the delivery of painful shock therapies or potentially proarrhythmic antitachycardia pacing therapies. A computer model of three different contemporary ICDs was used to examine their susceptibility to atrial fibrillation. For any given programmed tachycardia detection interval (TDI) an algorithm requiring all R-R intervals to be shorter than TDI is less likely to be satisfied by spontaneously occurring atrial fibrillation than one which requires only a proportion of R-R intervals to be shorter than the TDI. This difference is most marked at longer TDIs.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anderson et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: