Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2013
Mechanisms of inappropriate defibrillator therapy in a modern cohort of remotely monitored patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Hemal, Mezu Ure, Patel Divyang, Flanigan Susan, Hreybe Haitham, Adelstein Evan, Jain Sandeep, Lang Volker, Saba Samir
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Defibrillator (ICD) technology and monitoring are evolving rapidly. We investigated the mechanisms of inappropriate ICD therapies in a modern cohort of patients followed at our institution via remote monitoring.
METHODS: From September 2009 to March 2011, a total of 2,050 ICD patients (19,600 patient-months) were remotely followed. All events (shocks and antitachycardia pacing) were adjudicated by arrhythmia specialists.
RESULTS: A total of 249 patients received ICD therapy (34% inappropriate therapy). Inappropriate ICD shocks affected 33 (1.6%) patients. There were a total of 249 inappropriate episodes in 85 patients. Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with 1:1 atrioventricular association was the predominant mechanism accounting for 133 episodes in 50 patients, followed by atrial fibrillation (97 episodes in 27 patients). T-wave oversensing (16 episodes in five patients), electromagnetic interference (two episodes in two patients), and ectopic beats (one episode in one patient) accounted for a small proportion of events. There were 35 arrhythmic episodes in five patients that could not be classified, all in patients with single-chamber devices. There were no differences in these results by device manufacturer.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite many technological advances, inappropriate ICD shocks still occur but at very low rates and SVT with 1:1 atrioventricular association represents their most common mechanism.
METHODS: From September 2009 to March 2011, a total of 2,050 ICD patients (19,600 patient-months) were remotely followed. All events (shocks and antitachycardia pacing) were adjudicated by arrhythmia specialists.
RESULTS: A total of 249 patients received ICD therapy (34% inappropriate therapy). Inappropriate ICD shocks affected 33 (1.6%) patients. There were a total of 249 inappropriate episodes in 85 patients. Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with 1:1 atrioventricular association was the predominant mechanism accounting for 133 episodes in 50 patients, followed by atrial fibrillation (97 episodes in 27 patients). T-wave oversensing (16 episodes in five patients), electromagnetic interference (two episodes in two patients), and ectopic beats (one episode in one patient) accounted for a small proportion of events. There were 35 arrhythmic episodes in five patients that could not be classified, all in patients with single-chamber devices. There were no differences in these results by device manufacturer.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite many technological advances, inappropriate ICD shocks still occur but at very low rates and SVT with 1:1 atrioventricular association represents their most common mechanism.