Impact of device programming on the success of the first anti-tachycardia pacing therapy: An anonymized large-scale study

PLoS One. 2019 Aug 8;14(8):e0219533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219533. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Background: Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) is an effective treatment for ventricular tachycardia (VT). We evaluated the efficacy of different ATP programs based on a large remote monitoring data set from patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

Methods: A dataset from 18,679 ICD patients was used to evaluate the first delivered ATP treatment. We considered all device programs that were used for at least 50 patients, leaving us with 7 different programs and a total of 32,045 episodes. We used the two-proportions z-test (α = 0.01) to compare the probability of success and the probability for acceleration in each group with the corresponding values of the default setting.

Results: Overall, the first ATP treatment terminated in 78.4%-97.5% of episodes with slow VT and 81.5%-91.1% of episodes with fast VT. The default setting of the ATP programs with the number of sequences S = 3 was applied to treat 30.1% of the slow and 36.6% of the fast episodes. Reducing the maximum number of sequences to S = 2 decreased the success rate for slow VT (P < 0.0001, h = 0.38), while the setting S = 4 resulted in the highest success rate of 97.5% (P < 0.0001, h = 0.27).

Conclusion: While the default programs performed well, we found that increasing the number of sequences from 3 to 4 was a promising option to improve the overall ATP performance.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Cardiac Pacing, Artificial / methods*
  • Defibrillators, Implantable / trends
  • Electric Countershock / methods
  • Electrocardiography
  • Humans
  • Pacemaker, Artificial / trends
  • Tachycardia, Ventricular / physiopathology
  • Tachycardia, Ventricular / therapy*
  • Treatment Outcome

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark under grant #72-2014-1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.