Volume 14, Issue 2 pp. 302-307
Full Access

Device Interaction—Antitachycardia Pacemakers and Defibrillators for Sustained Ventricular Tachycardia

THOMAS S. AHERN

THOMAS S. AHERN

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Hahnemann University, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
CHARLES NYDEGGER

CHARLES NYDEGGER

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Hahnemann University, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
DANIEL J. MCCORMICK

DANIEL J. MCCORMICK

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Hahnemann University, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
ROGER MARINCHAK

ROGER MARINCHAK

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Lankenau Hospital, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
PETER KOWEY

PETER KOWEY

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Lankenau Hospital, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
LEONARD N. HOROWITZ

LEONARD N. HOROWITZ

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Presbyterian Hospital, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
SETH WORLEY

SETH WORLEY

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Search for more papers by this author
STEVEN P. KUTALEK

Corresponding Author

STEVEN P. KUTALEK

Philadelphia Arrhythmia Group, Philadelphia

Hahnemann University, Philadelphia

Address for reprints: Steven P. Kutalek, M.D., Hahnemann University Hospital, Broad & Vine Streets, Mail Stop 470, Philadelphia, PA 19102.Search for more papers by this author
First published: February 1991
Citations: 10

Abstract

We evaluated the combined use of permanent automatic antitachycardia pacemakers and implanted defibrillators in fen patients with recurrent monomorphic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Pacemaker programming was VVI-T automatic burst in eight patients, VVI-T magnet mode in one patient, and VVI in one patient. Device interactions occurred in four patients, requiring changes in pacemaker programming. These included defibrillator multiple counting during pacing, in-appropriate pacemaker bursts initiating VT, inappropriate reset of the pacemaker antitachycardia mode by defibrillation, defibrillator discharge after pacemaker VT termination, and defibrillator VT reinitiation. Two patients required pacemaker programming out of the antitachycardia mode, and two required a change in antitachycardia pacing parameters. Seven patients remain in automatic VVI-T and three in VVI modes. Mean follow-up is 13 months and all patients are alive. Thus, although pacemaker/ defibrillafor combinations function well for patients with more than one VT rate, device interactions occur frequently and may require pacemaker reprogramming or elimination of the overdrive mode. Combined use of these devices should be cautiously considered when single device therapy is unsatisfactory. Devices that combine both pacing and defibrillation features may reduce adverse interaction.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.