Is dual-chamber programming inferior to single-chamber programming in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator? Results of the INTRINSIC RV (inhibition of unnecessary RV pacing with AVSH in ICDs) study

被引:120
|
作者
Olshansky, Brian
Day, John D.
Moore, Stephen
Gering, Lawrence
Rosenbaum, Murray
McGuire, Maureen
Brown, Scott
Lerew, Darin R.
机构
[1] Univ Iowa Hosp, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[2] LDS Hosp, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[3] N Ohio Res Ltd, Elyria, OH USA
[4] Owensboro Mercy Hlth Syst, Owensboro, KY USA
[5] Integra Grp, Brooklyn Pk, MN USA
关键词
arrhythmia; tachyarrhythmias; defibrillation; electrophysiology; pacing;
D O I
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.629428
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background - The INTRINSIC RV (Inhibition of Unnecessary RV Pacing with AVSH in ICDs) study tested the hypothesis that dual-chamber rate-responsive (DDDR) with atrioventricular search hysteresis (AVSH) 60-130 programming is not inferior to single-chamber (VVI) - 40 programming in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with respect to all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations using an equivalence margin of 5%. Methods and Results - At 108 centers, 1530 patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication received a VITALITY AVT (Guidant Corporation, St. Paul, Minn) implantable cardioverter defibrillator programmed consistently to DDDR AVSH 60-130 for the first week. Of those, 988 patients with < 20% right ventricular pacing at 1 week were randomized to DDDR AVSH 60-130 or to VVI-40 programming. Among those randomized, 502 were assigned to DDDR AVSH and 486 to VVI. Groups were similar with regard to coronary disease (68%), gender (21% female), and New York Heart Association functional class > I (79%). A total of 32 patients (6.4%) in the DDDR AVSH arm and 46 patients (9.5%) in the VVI arm died or were hospitalized for heart failure during a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (relative risk = 0.67, P = 0.072 in favor of DDDR AVSH). DDDR AVSH was not inferior to VVI programming (P < 0.001). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between the DDDR AVSH arm (3.6%) and the VVI arm (5.1%; P < 0.23). The mean percent right ventricular pacing in the DDDR AVSH arm was 10% (median 4%) versus 3% (median 0%) in the VVI arm. Conclusions - In the INTRINSIC RV trial, among those randomized, DDDR AVSH was associated with similar outcomes as with VVI backup pacing.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 16
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator vs single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator: High incidence of device and lead related complications in dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator
    Takahashi, T
    Cannom, DS
    Abdullah, E
    Lerman, RD
    Park, Y
    Bishara, M
    Girsky, M
    Bhandari, AK
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2000, 35 (02) : 127A - 127A
  • [2] Indications for dual-chamber (DDD) pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients
    Santini, M
    Ansalone, G
    Auriti, A
    Magris, B
    Pandozi, C
    Altamura, G
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1996, 78 : 116 - 117
  • [3] Indications for dual-chamber (DDD) pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients - Discussion
    Klein
    Santini
    Rowland
    Kuck
    Rosenqvist
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1996, 78 : 118 - 118
  • [4] Reduced Risk for Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks With Dual-Chamber Therapy Compared With Single-Chamber Therapy Results of the Randomized OPTION Study
    Kolb, Christof
    Sturmer, Marcio
    Sick, Peter
    Reif, Sebastian
    Davy, Jean Marc
    Molon, Giulio
    Schwab, Joerg Otto
    Mantovani, Giuseppe
    Dan, Dan
    Lennerz, Carsten
    Borri-Brunetto, Alberto
    Babuty, Dominique
    JACC-HEART FAILURE, 2014, 2 (06) : 611 - 619
  • [5] Single-chamber versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators:: Indications and clinical results
    Trappe, HJ
    Achtelik, M
    Pfitzner, P
    Voigt, B
    Weismüller, P
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1999, 83 (5B): : 8D - 16D
  • [6] Electrophysiologists prefer dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming even when right ventricular pacing is likely
    Olshansky, B
    Day, JD
    Stolen, KQ
    Brown, S
    Lerew, DR
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE, 2005, 11 (06) : S147 - S147
  • [7] The impact of dual-versus single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation on survival
    Gold, M
    Freedman, R
    Breiter, D
    Zhang, YL
    Schwartz, M
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2003, 41 (06) : 138A - 138A
  • [8] Critical analysis of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator arrhythmia detection -: Results and technical considerations
    Wilkoff, BL
    Kühlkamp, V
    Volosin, K
    Ellenbogen, K
    Waldecker, B
    Kacet, S
    Gillberg, JM
    DeSouza, CM
    CIRCULATION, 2001, 103 (03) : 381 - 386
  • [9] Comparison study on sensing and identification of Single-Lead Atrial Sensing System, Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator System
    Long, Qilin
    Sun, Jie
    Dong, Jianting
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2018, 72 (16) : C135 - C135
  • [10] Questioning the preference for dual- vs. single-chamber implantable defibrillator in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients
    Kutyifa, Valentina
    Theuns, Dominic A. M. J.
    EUROPACE, 2017, 19 (09): : 1416 - 1417