Key result
Remote ICD monitoring shows a ~7% rate of inappropriate shocks, driven mostly by AF.
Why the study?
Inappropriate ICD shocks are unpleasant and painful, and the impact of remote monitoring and attention to atrial fibrillation on reducing these shocks in clinical practice was hypothesized but not established.
Observational (n=259)
No
Supports remote ICD monitoring integration; leaves open randomized confirmation of outcome benefits.
OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate shocks are unpleasant and painful. We hypothesise that remote monitoring and careful attention to known and incident atrial fibrillation (AF) can reduce inappropriate shocks to a very low level in clinical praxis. METHODS: Altogether 259 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted for secondary (S, n=113) and primary (P, n=146) prevention were followed via remote monitoring. At implant, 42S (37%) and 54P (37%) patients had known AF. RESULTS: Inappropriate shocks, all but five due to AF, occurred in 7S (6.2%) and 11P (7.5%), and there were only inappropriate shocks in 5/7S and in 8/11P. They occurred in four of 42S (9.5%) with and in three of 71S (4.2%) without known AF, and in seven of 54P (13%) with and in four of 92P (4.3%) without known AF. The median time from shock to action was 5 and 1 day, respectively. Actions were medication with amiodarone, β blockers, β blockers+amiodarone or β blockers+digoxin (n=5), β blockers+insertion of an atrial lead (n=1), replacement of a fractured lead (n=2), reprogramming in combination with β blockers, digoxin or amiodarone (n=4), reprogramming (n=2) and none (n=4). After action, four further inappropriate shocks occurred during more than 2 years of follow-up, all due to AF. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate shocks occurred at a low rate and most often because of AF known at implant. Remote monitoring enabled rapid action, after which few inappropriate shocks occurred over more than 2 years. Attention to known and incident AF was the most important action to reduce inappropriate shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandgren et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) indication for primary or secondary prevention (n=259). Remote device and rhythm monitoring vs. null was evaluated on Incidence of inappropriate shocks. Remote monitoring of ICDs demonstrated a low rate of inappropriate shocks (6.9% overall), most commonly due to known atrial fibrillation, and enabled rapid clinical action.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: