Key result
Dual-zone programming for detection rates <200 bpm was associated with lower appropriate shock rates at 1 year (6.7% vs 9.1% for ≤170 bpm, P<0.001) compared to single-zone programming.
Why the study?
Does dual-zone programming reduce the frequency of shocks and improve survival compared to single-zone programming in patients with ICD and CRT-D?
Cohort
Does dual-zone programming reduce the frequency of shocks and improve survival compared to single-zone programming in patients with ICD and CRT-D?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.7% vs 9.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Dual-zone programming for ICDs and CRT-Ds reduces the incidence of both appropriate and inappropriate shocks at detection rates <200 bpm without increasing mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dual-zone programming may lower appropriate shocks in ICD/CRT-D patients; leaves open survival effects and practice change pending RCTs.
Gilliam et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Patients with ICD and CRT-D. Dual-zone programming vs. Single-zone programming was evaluated on Appropriate shock rates at 1 year for detection rates ≤170 bpm (p=<0.001). Dual-zone programming for detection rates <200 bpm was associated with lower appropriate shock rates at 1 year (6.7% vs 9.1% for ≤170 bpm, P<0.001) compared to single-zone programming.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: