Why the study?
ICD electrogram morphology algorithms are recommended as standalone discriminators, but proprietary algorithms differ in design and nominal programming.
Do different proprietary morphology algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators differ in their ability to discriminate ventricular from supraventricular tachycardia?
Population
534 VT and SVT episodes from dual- and triple-chamber ICDs across nine European centers
Comparison
Three different algorithms (Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic) with nominal vs advanced programming
Design
Multicenter comparative evaluation
Authors
Loading...
Algorithm differences in SVT-VT discrimination advise caution with nominal settings; leaves open whether advanced programming improves real-world outcomes.
Do different proprietary morphology algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators differ in their ability to discriminate ventricular from supraventricular tachycardia?
Proprietary morphology discriminators in ICDs exhibit significant differences in SVT discrimination, highlighting the potential need for device-specific programming optimization.
Frontera et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: