Volume 20, Issue 9 pp. 1077-1082

Arrhythmia Detection in Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: The More Leads, the Better?

PIETRO FRANCIA M.D.

PIETRO FRANCIA M.D.

Cardiology Department, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
CRISTINA BALLA M.D.

CRISTINA BALLA M.D.

Cardiology Department, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
ARIANNA UCCELLINI M.D.

ARIANNA UCCELLINI M.D.

Cardiology Department, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
RICCARDO CAPPATO M.D.

RICCARDO CAPPATO M.D.

I.R.C.C.S. San Donato, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Centre, Milan, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 26 August 2009
Citations: 23
Address for correspondence: Riccardo Cappato, M.D., Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Centre, I.R.C.C.S. Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan, Via Rodolfo Morandi, 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. Fax: +39-02-55603125; E-mail: [email protected]

Editor: Stephen C. Hammill, M.D.

Abstract

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) offers life-saving therapies for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients. However, ICD detection algorithms consistently misclassify a substantial proportion of supraventricular rhythms, thus carrying the risk for inappropriate therapies. Although single-chamber ICD (Sc-ICD) discrimination tools have been reported to provide high specificity in rejecting sinus tachycardia and atrial fibrillation with a relatively low ventricular rate, accurate recognition of atrial fibrillation with faster ventricular rates, atrial tachycardias, atrial flutter, and some reentrant tachycardias is still an issue. Dual-chamber ICDs (Dc-ICDs) are supposed to overcome specificity issues by enhancing detection algorithms with information derived from the atrial and ventricular timing relationship. The initial promise of Dc-ICDs was to improve detection specificity without compromising sensitivity, and to translate this advantage over Sc-ICDs in a more selective use of aggressive therapies. Despite this solid background, superiority of Dc- over Sc-ICDs has never been convincingly demonstrated. The present review focuses on the efficacy of contemporary ICD arrhythmia discrimination tools and appraises the so far reported evidence supporting the superiority of Dc-ICDs in preventing inappropriate therapies.

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