Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

SCD 2014: Have We Been Programming Defibrillators Poorly? New Information!

100

Published on

Albert Sun, MD

Albert Sun, MD

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
100
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Have we been programming our defibrillators poorly? Albert Y. Sun, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Duke University Medical Center albert.sun@duke.edu
  • 2. Programming ICDs War Games MGM 1983 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 3. Overview of Basic ICD Function Device Programming Tachycardia Detection VT 170 bpm Classification Monitoring SVT VT/VF Withhold Therapies Therapy Spurious detection Withhold Therapies Redection Episode Termination No VT/VF Therapies Exhausted yes Adapted from Circulation: A and E, 10/2011 vol. 4 no. 5 778-790 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 4. Case 1: 85 y/o Male with Afib, ICM, and a Primary Prevention ICD All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 5. What to do next? A.  No changes to programming, increase beta blocker and/or start anti-arrhythmic B.  Change VF to >200 bpm and increase NID to 30/40. C.  Turn on Discriminators (Stability and Onset) D.  B and C E.  B and C and medication changes F.  Other 54% 16% 16% 6% 8% All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 Ch N o   c ha n ge s er th O an  to ge  pr  V og F r Tu  to am rn  > ...  o 20 n 0    D b is p m cr im  .. in . at or B s    a (. .. n d  C  a n B d    a m n ed d  C ic at io n ... 0%
  • 6. A)  No changes to programming, increase beta blocker and/or start anti-arrhythmic B)  Change VF to >200 bpm and increase NID to 30/40. C)  Turn on Discriminators (Stability and Onset) D)  B and C E)  B and C and medication changes F)  Other All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 7. Irregular Cycle Length All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 A Lead not functioning – Undersensing Afib
  • 8. Inappropriate Shocks 45 39 40 33 35 30 26 25 21 20 15 17 12 % Inappropriate Shocks % Appropriate Shocks 10 5 0 MADIT-II DEFINITE SCD-HefT Kadish A, Dyer A, Daubert JP, et al., N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2151-2158. Daubert JP, Zareba W, Cannom DS, et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;5:1357-1365. Poole JE, Johnson GW, Hellkamp AS, et al. N Engl J Med. September 4, 2008;359:1009-1017. All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 9. Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks in MADIT II: Frequency, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Survival Impact HR for mortality of 2.29 (p = 0.02) Daubert, JP et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(14):1357-1365. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.073 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 10. Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks in MADIT II: Frequency, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Survival Impact Ventricular Rate Precipitating Inappropriate Shock Daubert, JP et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(14):1357-1365. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.073 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 11. PREPARE J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:541–50 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 12. MADIT-RIT Cumulative Probability of First Inappropriate Therapy by Treatment Group Arm A (Conventional) Arm B (High-rate) Arm C (Duration-delay) Zone 1: Zone 1: Zone 1: >170 bpm, 2.5s delay 170 bpm >170 bpm, 60s delay ATP + Shock Monitor only ATP + Shock Zone 2: Zone 2: Zone 2: >200 bpm, 1s delay >200 bpm, 2.5s delay >200 bpm, 12s delay Quick Convert ATP Shock Quick Convert ATP Shock ATP + Shock Zone 3 : >250 bpm, 2.5s delay Quick Convert ATP + Shock Reduction in all-cause mortality (high- rate therapy vs. conventional therapy) HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.85; P=0.01 Moss, A et al. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2275-83. All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 13. ADVANCE III Trial design: Patients undergoing ICD implantation were randomized to either prolonged detection (30 of 40 intervals) or routine programming (18 of 24 intervals). Patients were followed for 1 year. /100 Patient-Years 100 67 50 42 0 Primary endpoint (p < 0.001) Longinterval (n = 948) Standardinterval (n = 954) Gasparini M, et al. JAMA 2013;309:1903-11 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 14. Results of the PainFree Rx II (Pacing Fast Ventricular Tachycardia Reduces Shock Therapies) trial. The pie charts show terminating therapy for FVT episodes in each arm. Koneru J et al. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2011;4:778-790 Copyright © American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 15. Take Home Points From This Case •  New Paradigm in Primary Prevention ICD programming –  Longer detect times - NID 30/40; VF 2.5 + secs –  Higher Rate Therapy zones VF>200, •  Utilize Discriminators •  Utilize ATP even for Fast VT All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 16. Case 2: 67M with Chronic Afib, NICM, CRT-D, and worsening Heart Failure Symptoms Pacing Summary Mode DDD Lower Rate 60 Paced AV 130 ms Mode Switch 171 Upper Track 120 Sensed AV 100 ms Upper Sensor 120 Afib Burden 100% AS 100% VP 61% VS 39% All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 Relevant Meds: •  Toprol XL 200 BID •  Digoxin 0.125 Daily •  Lisinopril 40 Daily •  Spironolactone 25 Daily •  Lasix 40 BID •  Amiodarone 200 Daily
  • 17. A.  Increase Lower Rate from 60 to 70 B.  Afib Ablation C.  AV node ablation D.  All are reasonable What to do next? Pacing Summary Mode DDD Lower Rate 60 Paced AV 130 ms Mode Switch 171 Upper Track 12 0 Sensed AV 100 ms Upper Sensor 12 0 Afib Burden 41% 44% 100% AS 100% VP 6% 9% 61% A. VS All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 39% B. C. D.
  • 18. What to do next? Pacing Summary Mode DDD Lower Rate 60 Paced AV 130 ms Mode Switch 171 Upper Track 120 Sensed AV 100 ms Upper Sensor 120 Afib Burden 100% AS 100% VP 61% VS 39% All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 A)  Increase Lower Rate from 60 to 70 B)  Afib Ablation C)  AV node ablation D)  All are reasonable
  • 19. Very low Bi-Ventricular pacing percentage Pacing Summary Mode DDD Lower Rate 60 Paced AV 130 ms Mode Switch 171 Upper Track 120 Sensed AV 100 ms Upper Sensor 120 Afib with RVR Afib Burden 100% AS 100% VP 61% VS 39% All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 20. Atrial Fibrillation Impacts Adherence to Heart Rhythm Society Recommendations for Achieving High Bi-Ventricular Pacing Percentage in US Clinics Multivariate analysis in Persistent AF patients Variable Odds Ratio (95% CI) Mean ventricular rate during 0.56  (0.44-­‐0.70)   AF % Patients with LR 1.07  (1.04  to   programmed ≥ 70 BPM 1.11)   P Value <  0.001   <  0.001   Atwater BD, Ousdigian KS, Sun AY, Koehler JL, Deering TL. AHA 2013 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 21. Survival and Biventricular Pacing percentage Patients with biventricular pacing percentage above 99.6% experienced a 24% reduction in mortality compared with the other quartile groups (hazard ratio = 0.76, P =0.001). Hayes, D et al Heart Rhythm 2011;8:1469 –1475 All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 22. Take Home Points •  Goal for BiV pacing >99% –  Programming changes –  Aggressive Afib control All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 23. Case 3: 65 M with ICM EF 35%, Dual Chamber Primary Prevention ICD with mild fatigue Current programming: DDD 50 80 60 AP-VS 40 AP-VP 20 0 <40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 >200 % of the time 100 VT: NID 16, 167 bpm, ATP (Burst) x 1, 35J x6 VF: NID 18/24, >188bpm, ATP during Charging, 35J x 6 Ventricular Rate Interrogation with no Ventricular High rate events All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 24. VT: NID 16, 167 bpm, ATP (Burst) x 1, 35J x6 VF: NID 18/24, >188bpm, ATP during Charging, 35J x 6 33% 11% on ng e T   m Ch a dd  V 0% th e r 0% O 0% A All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 33% 22% ito A.  Add VT monitor zone at 150 to catch VHR B.  Change Therapy zone to single zone VF 30/40 >200 bpm C.  Change Pacing mode to DDDR 60 D.  Change Pacing mode to DDDR 60 E.  A and B F.  All of the above G.  Other Current programming: DDD 50 r  z   Ch The one  a an r a ge py t  ..  z .   Ch Pac on an in e  t ge g  m o  . ..  P ac o d e in g    to. m . od . e   to ... A A  a ll   of nd  th  B e   ab ov e What to do next?
  • 25. What to do next? A)  Add VT monitor zone at 150 to catch VHR B)  Change Therapy zone to single zone VF 30/40 >200 bpm C)  Change Pacing mode to DDDR 60 D)  Increase Beta Blocker E)  A and B F)  All of the above G)  Other All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 Current programming: DDD 50 VT: NID 16, 167 bpm, ATP (Burst) x 1, 35J x6 VF: NID 18/24, >188bpm, ATP during Charging, 35J x6
  • 26. % of the time Chronotropic incompetence 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PVCs/NSVT/Bigeminy VS VT: NID 16, 167 bpm, ATP (Burst) x 1, 35J x6 VP VF: NID 18/24, >188bpm, ATP during Charging, 35J x 6 Ventricular Rate All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007 Current programming: DDD 50
  • 27. Overall Take Home Points •  New Paradigm in Primary Prevention ICD programming –  Longer detect times - NID 30/40; VF 2.5 + secs –  Higher Rate Therapy zones VF>200, •  Utilize Discriminators •  Uitlize ATP even for Fast VT •  Goal for BiV pacing >99% –  Programming changes –  Aggressive Afib control •  Not all VT needs to be treated. All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
  • 28. Thank you for your time and thank you to the patients. All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007

×