Key result
Novel ICD programming cuts inappropriate therapy ~92% vs conventional programming in NYHA III.
Why the study?
The effects of heart failure severity on the risk of inappropriate ICD therapy have not been thoroughly investigated.
Does novel ICD programming with high-rate cut-offs or delayed therapy reduce inappropriate ICD therapy across different severities of heart failure compared to conventional programming?
RCT (n=1,500)
randomized
Does novel ICD programming with high-rate cut-offs or delayed therapy reduce inappropriate ICD therapy across different severities of heart failure compared to conventional programming?
Hazard Ratio: 0.08
p-value: p=<0.001
Novel ICD programming with high-rate cut-offs or delayed detection safely and significantly reduces inappropriate ICD therapies in patients with both mild and moderate heart failure.
NYHA III patients had higher inappropriate therapy risk with conventional programming; leaves open whether novel ICD settings should be prioritized by HF severity.
BACKGROUND: The effects of heart failure (HF) severity on risk of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy have not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to study the association between HF severity and inappropriate ICD therapy in MADIT-RIT. METHODS: MADIT-RIT randomized 1,500 patients to three ICD programming arms: conventional (Arm A), high-rate cut-off (Arm B: ≥200 beats/min), and delayed therapy (Arm C: 60-second delay for ≥170 beats/min). We evaluated the association between New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III (n = 256) versus class I-II (n = 251) and inappropriate ICD therapy in Arm A patients with ICD-only and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). We additionally assessed benefit of novel ICD programming in Arms B and C versus Arm A by NYHA classification. RESULTS: In Arm A, the risk of inappropriate therapy was significantly higher in those with NYHA III versus NYHA I-II for both ICD (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.55, confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-4.30, P < 0.001) and CRT-D patients (HR = 3.73, CI: 1.14-12.23, P = 0.030). This was consistent for inappropriate ATP and inappropriate ICD therapy < 200 beats/min, but not for inappropriate shocks. Novel ICD programming significantly reduced inappropriate therapy in patients with both NYHA III (Arm B vs Arm A: HR = 0.08, P < 0.001; Arm C vs Arm A: HR = 0.17, P < 0.001) and NYHA I-II (Arm B vs Arm A: HR = 0.25, P < 0.001; Arm C vs Arm A: HR = 0.28, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with more severe HF are at increased risk for inappropriate ICD therapy, particularly ATP due to arrhythmias < 200 beats/min. Novel programming with high-rate cut-off or delayed detection reduces inappropriate ICD therapies in both mild and moderate HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daimee et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=1,500). Novel ICD programming (high-rate cut-off or delayed therapy) vs. Conventional programming was evaluated on Inappropriate ICD therapy (high-rate cut-off vs conventional in NYHA III) (HR 0.08, p=<0.001). Novel ICD programming significantly reduced inappropriate therapy in NYHA III (HR 0.08, P<0.001) and NYHA I-II (HR 0.25, P<0.001) patients compared to conventional programming.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: