Programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in primary prevention: Guideline concordance and outcomes

BACKGROUND Inappropriate therapy is a common adverse effect in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that may be prevented by appropriate programming. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of device programming based on a 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and a 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing. METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention from 2014-2016 at 3 centers were included in the retrospective analysis. Patients were classified into 2 groups based on the tachycardia programming at the time of implant: guideline concordant group (GC) and non-guideline concordant group (NGC). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate freedom from ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shock), ICD shock, and death. RESULTS A total of 772 patients were included in the study (mean age 63.3 +/- 13.8 years). Of this total, 258 patients (33.4%) were in the GC group and 514 patients (66.6%) were in the NGC group. During mean follow-up of 2.02 +/- 0.91 years, guideline concordant programming was associated with a 53% reduction in ICD therapy (P < .01) and 50% reduction in ICD shock (P = .02). There were no significant differences in mortality (6% in GC group vs11% in NGC group; P = .22). CONCLUSION Only one-third of the studied population had an ICD device programmed in concordance with current guidelines. ICD programming based on the current guidelines was associated with a significantly lower rate of ICD therapy and shock without changes in mortality during intermediate-term follow-up. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Heart Rhythm Society.