Loading…
915ATP efficacy on terminating ventricular tachycardia by device type, indication, and ventricular median cycle length
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Medtronic OnBehalf PainFree SST Background Anti-tachycardia Pacing (ATP) is an established therapy that terminates VT without the need for painful ICD shocks. Here we use the data from PainFree SST clinical trial to evaluate the ATP success rate by device type, indi...
Saved in:
Published in: | Europace (London, England) England), 2020-06, Vol.22 (Supplement_1) |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Request full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Abstract
Funding Acknowledgements
Medtronic
OnBehalf
PainFree SST
Background
Anti-tachycardia Pacing (ATP) is an established therapy that terminates VT without the need for painful ICD shocks. Here we use the data from PainFree SST clinical trial to evaluate the ATP success rate by device type, indication and MCL.
Methods
Spontaneous episodes that were detected by ICD or CRT-D devices in the VT, fast VT and VF zones were included in the analysis. Episodes successfully terminated by ATP were deemed as having ATP success. Using the GEE method, ATP success rate and its 95% CI were calculated for device types, indications and ventricular MCL.
Results
Of the 2770 enrolled patients (79% male, average age 65 years), 1699 (61%) were implanted with an ICD and 1071 (39%) with a CRT-D system; 1917 (69%) were reported as primary prevention and 847 (31%) were secondary prevention patients. For all MVT episodes, the ATP success rate was similar between ICD and CRT-D devices (82.3% vs 80.3%, p = 0.74). Patients with secondary prevention had a higher ATP success rate compared to those with primary prevention but the difference was not statistically significant (84.4% vs 76.8%, p = 0.16). Regardless of device type and indication, ATP success rate was significantly higher in the slower VTs (MCL ≥ 320 ms) compared to the faster VTs (MCL ≥ 240 to < 320 ms) (89.2% vs 73.7%, p /=) 320 ms
-
1416 (209)
89.2% (85.7%, 91.9%)
-
* Per a GEE main effect model for all episodes where device type, |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1099-5129 1532-2092 |
DOI: | 10.1093/europace/euaa162.343 |