Why the study?
Does antitachycardia pacing (ATP) programming improve effectiveness and reduce complications compared to VF therapy only in children and young adults with ICDs?
Does antitachycardia pacing (ATP) programming improve effectiveness and reduce complications compared to VF therapy only in children and young adults with ICDs?
In young ICD recipients, antitachycardia pacing is rarely effective and often harmful, suggesting that programming for VF therapy only is generally sufficient and may reduce inappropriate interventions.
May support VF-only programming in young ICD recipients to limit harm; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
AIMS: Young implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients present a high rate of inappropriate interventions. Some of them are caused by suboptimal pre-discharge programming of the device. There are conflicting data as regards antitachycardia pacing (ATP) effectiveness in children and young adults. We report our experience with ICD programming and a rate of complications during a 10 year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the use and effectiveness of ATP and complications rate in 63 patients aged 6-21 years. Antitachycardia pacing (burst or ramp) was programmed ON in 14 patients (22%), 49 patients (78%) had only ventricular fibrillation (VF) therapy when discharged after implantation. The incidence of effective vs. ineffective or harmful ATP therapy: 5% of patients vs. 19% of patients differed significantly (P < 0.05). Fourteen patients (22%) received > or =1 appropriate shock(s) for ventricular tachycardia/VF and 17 patients (27%) had one or multiple inappropriate therapy (IT). Inappropriate therapy resulted from T-wave over-sensing (nine patients), sinus tachycardia (three patients), fast atrial fibrillation (five patients), and lead insulation disruption (1%). Reprogramming of the device eliminated IT in all cases. There were 13 (21%) surgical complications. Serious psychological sequelae developed in 27 (43%) patients. There was one death during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Antitachycardia pacing therapy is rarely effective and often harmful in young ICD recipients. In most patients, programming ICD for only VF therapy is sufficient. Routine pre-discharge programming against inappropriate interventions (especially T-wave over-sensing) helps to reduce the incidence of discharges during the follow-up. The incidence of complications and inappropriate therapies is high in young ICD recipients and affects 50% of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewandowski et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: