Efficacy of antitachycardia pacing alert by remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators for out‐of‐hospital electrical storm. Issue 10 (12th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Otsuki, Sou; Izumi, Daisuke; Sakaguchi, Yuta; Suzuki, Naomasa; Hakamata, Takahiro; Ikami, Yasuhiro; Hasegawa, Yuki; Yagihara, Nobue; Iijima, Kenichi; Chinushi, Masaomi; Minamino, Tohru; Takayuki, Inomata
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 10(2021)
• Page Start: 1675
• Page End: 1682
• Publication Date: 2021-08-12
• Subjects: antitachycardia pacing (ATP) -- electrical storm -- implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) -- remote monitoring; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14334
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Remote monitoring (RM) has been shown to reduce all‐cause mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (ICD/CRT‐D). Not all devices transmit an alert for antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy, and it is unknown whether differences of RM alert affect the outcomes of electrical storm (ES). Methods: We enrolled 42 patients with ICD/CRT‐D whose out‐of‐hospital ES were detected by RM between 2013 and 2020. We divided their 54 episodes into two groups (ATP‐alert‐on; 22, ATP‐alert‐off; 32), and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: In 35 of 54 episodes of ES, ventricular tachycardia (VT) could be terminated within 24 h of ES onset just by ATP (ATP‐alert‐on: 14, ATP‐alert‐off: 21); however, many patients subsequently received shock delivery for VT. Among the 35 episodes, only in ATP‐alert‐on group, seven patients were prompted to visit our hospital without ICD shock through confirmation of ES by ATP‐alert. Episodes that led to shock delivery 24 h or longer after the ES onset were significantly less common in the ATP‐alert‐on group (ATP‐alert‐on: 1/14, ATP‐alert‐off: 9/21, p = .03). Although there were no significant differences in the number of shock deliveries between episodes in the two groups, the number of ATP deliveries were significantly fewer in the ATP‐alert‐on group (12[7‐26] vs. 29[16‐53] in ATP‐alert‐off group, p = .03). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that the only ATP‐alert significantly reduced ATP deliveries (HR = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.04‐0.57, p = .003). Conclusion: Remote monitoring with an ATP‐alert function during electrical storm may reduce appropriate ICD therapy through prompting early review.