Key result
Ventricular rate stabilization fails to reduce recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias versus deactivation in ICD recipients.
Why the study?
The clinical efficacy of ventricular rate stabilization by dedicated antibradycardia pacing algorithms to prevent pause dependent ventricular tachyarrhythmias has not been studied systematically.
Does activation of a ventricular rate stabilization algorithm reduce the rate of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with a newly implanted dual chamber ICD?
Population
309 patients after first implant of a dual chamber ICD
Comparison
Activation vs deactivation of ventricular rate stabilization algorithm (VRS On vs VRS Off)
Design
Prospective multicenter randomized crossover study
Follow-up
3 months per crossover period
Authors
Loading...
Should not alter ICD programming; leaves open efficacy pending randomized confirmation.
RCT (n=309)
Crossover
Yes
Does activation of a ventricular rate stabilization algorithm reduce the rate of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with a newly implanted dual chamber ICD?
Relative Risk: 0.92 (95% CI 0.58–1.48)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.6% vs 10.2%
p-value: p=0.74
Ventricular rate stabilization algorithms do not significantly reduce the incidence of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with dual chamber ICDs.
Grönefeld et al. (2002) conducted an RCT in Ventricular tachyarrhythmias (n=309). Ventricular rate stabilization algorithm (VRS) On vs. VRS Off was evaluated on Incidence of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58-1.48, p=0.74). Ventricular rate stabilization in ICD recipients did not significantly reduce recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias compared to deactivation (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.58-1.48; P=0.74).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: