Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up

A retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defribillator era

Alessandro Proclemer, P. Della Bella, D. Facchin, L. Fattore, C. Carbucicchio, C. Tondo, M. Lunati, M. R. Vecchi, E. Petz, M. Zecchin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim. This retrospective four-centre study assessed the current indications for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at implant and during a medium-term follow-up period in a group of patients treated by single-chamber ICD in the pre dual-chamber ICD era. Methods and Results. The study population consisted of 153 consecutive patients (127 males, mean age 58 ± 6 years) treated by single-chamber ICD for ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. Definite indications for having a dual-chamber ICD included the presence of sinus node dysfunction and of second- or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, while possible indications were represented by paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter and first-degree AV block. At implant, dual-chamber ICD would appear definitely indicated in 10·5% of cases, and possibly indicated in an additional 17·5% of cases. During 12 ± 10 months follow-up, such percentages remained stable (11 and 19·5%, respectively). Inappropriate ICD intervention was documented in five of 13 patients (38%), with episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter. Conclusion. In this non-selected study population, a dual-chamber ICD would have potentially benefited approximately 30% of the patients. During medium-term follow-up, there was no progression towards increasing dual-chamber ICD indications. The 15% cumulative incidence of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias justifies the activation of dedicated detection algorithms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)132-135
Number of pages4
JournalEuropace
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Defibrillators
Implantable Defibrillators
Atrial Flutter
Atrioventricular Block
Atrial Fibrillation
Sick Sinus Syndrome
Ventricular Fibrillation
Ventricular Tachycardia
Tachycardia
Population
Incidence

Keywords

  • Dual-chamber pacing
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up : A retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defribillator era. / Proclemer, Alessandro; Bella, P. Della; Facchin, D.; Fattore, L.; Carbucicchio, C.; Tondo, C.; Lunati, M.; Vecchi, M. R.; Petz, E.; Zecchin, M.

In: Europace, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001, p. 132-135.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Proclemer, Alessandro ; Bella, P. Della ; Facchin, D. ; Fattore, L. ; Carbucicchio, C. ; Tondo, C. ; Lunati, M. ; Vecchi, M. R. ; Petz, E. ; Zecchin, M. / Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up : A retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defribillator era. In: Europace. 2001 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 132-135.
@article{096ed08413ec410f9bf6f3a8aa25b47c,
title = "Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up: A retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defribillator era",
abstract = "Aim. This retrospective four-centre study assessed the current indications for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at implant and during a medium-term follow-up period in a group of patients treated by single-chamber ICD in the pre dual-chamber ICD era. Methods and Results. The study population consisted of 153 consecutive patients (127 males, mean age 58 ± 6 years) treated by single-chamber ICD for ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. Definite indications for having a dual-chamber ICD included the presence of sinus node dysfunction and of second- or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, while possible indications were represented by paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter and first-degree AV block. At implant, dual-chamber ICD would appear definitely indicated in 10·5{\%} of cases, and possibly indicated in an additional 17·5{\%} of cases. During 12 ± 10 months follow-up, such percentages remained stable (11 and 19·5{\%}, respectively). Inappropriate ICD intervention was documented in five of 13 patients (38{\%}), with episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter. Conclusion. In this non-selected study population, a dual-chamber ICD would have potentially benefited approximately 30{\%} of the patients. During medium-term follow-up, there was no progression towards increasing dual-chamber ICD indications. The 15{\%} cumulative incidence of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias justifies the activation of dedicated detection algorithms.",
keywords = "Dual-chamber pacing, Implantable cardioverter defibrillator",
author = "Alessandro Proclemer and Bella, {P. Della} and D. Facchin and L. Fattore and C. Carbucicchio and C. Tondo and M. Lunati and Vecchi, {M. R.} and E. Petz and M. Zecchin",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1053/eupc.2001.0157",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "132--135",
journal = "Europace",
issn = "1099-5129",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up

T2 - A retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defribillator era

AU - Proclemer, Alessandro

AU - Bella, P. Della

AU - Facchin, D.

AU - Fattore, L.

AU - Carbucicchio, C.

AU - Tondo, C.

AU - Lunati, M.

AU - Vecchi, M. R.

AU - Petz, E.

AU - Zecchin, M.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Aim. This retrospective four-centre study assessed the current indications for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at implant and during a medium-term follow-up period in a group of patients treated by single-chamber ICD in the pre dual-chamber ICD era. Methods and Results. The study population consisted of 153 consecutive patients (127 males, mean age 58 ± 6 years) treated by single-chamber ICD for ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. Definite indications for having a dual-chamber ICD included the presence of sinus node dysfunction and of second- or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, while possible indications were represented by paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter and first-degree AV block. At implant, dual-chamber ICD would appear definitely indicated in 10·5% of cases, and possibly indicated in an additional 17·5% of cases. During 12 ± 10 months follow-up, such percentages remained stable (11 and 19·5%, respectively). Inappropriate ICD intervention was documented in five of 13 patients (38%), with episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter. Conclusion. In this non-selected study population, a dual-chamber ICD would have potentially benefited approximately 30% of the patients. During medium-term follow-up, there was no progression towards increasing dual-chamber ICD indications. The 15% cumulative incidence of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias justifies the activation of dedicated detection algorithms.

AB - Aim. This retrospective four-centre study assessed the current indications for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) at implant and during a medium-term follow-up period in a group of patients treated by single-chamber ICD in the pre dual-chamber ICD era. Methods and Results. The study population consisted of 153 consecutive patients (127 males, mean age 58 ± 6 years) treated by single-chamber ICD for ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. Definite indications for having a dual-chamber ICD included the presence of sinus node dysfunction and of second- or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, while possible indications were represented by paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter and first-degree AV block. At implant, dual-chamber ICD would appear definitely indicated in 10·5% of cases, and possibly indicated in an additional 17·5% of cases. During 12 ± 10 months follow-up, such percentages remained stable (11 and 19·5%, respectively). Inappropriate ICD intervention was documented in five of 13 patients (38%), with episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter. Conclusion. In this non-selected study population, a dual-chamber ICD would have potentially benefited approximately 30% of the patients. During medium-term follow-up, there was no progression towards increasing dual-chamber ICD indications. The 15% cumulative incidence of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias justifies the activation of dedicated detection algorithms.

KW - Dual-chamber pacing

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035049643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035049643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/eupc.2001.0157

DO - 10.1053/eupc.2001.0157

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 132

EP - 135

JO - Europace

JF - Europace

SN - 1099-5129

IS - 2

ER -