2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS focused update to 2015 expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.
Antitachycardia pacing
Bradycardia mode and rate
Defibrillation testing
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Programming
Sudden cardiac death
Tachycardia detection
Tachycardia therapy
Ventricular fibrillation
Ventricular tachycardia
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing
ISSN: 1572-8595
Titre abrégé: J Interv Card Electrophysiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9708966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
22
1
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
22
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE Expert Consensus Statement on Optimal Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Programming and Testing provided guidance on bradycardia programming, tachycardia detection, tachycardia therapy, and defibrillation testing for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patient treatment. The 32 recommendations represented the consensus opinion of the writing group, graded by Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. In addition, Appendix B provided manufacturer-specific translations of these recommendations into clinical practice consistent with the recommendations within the parent document. In some instances, programming guided by quality evidence gained from studies performed in devices from some manufacturers was translated such that this programming was approximated in another manufacturer's ICD programming settings. The authors found that the data, although not formally tested, were strong, consistent, and generalizable beyond the specific manufacturer and model of ICD. As expected, because these recommendations represented strategic choices to balance risks, there have been reports in which adverse outcomes were documented with ICDs programmed to Appendix B recommendations. The recommendations have been reviewed and updated to minimize such adverse events. Notably, patients who do not receive unnecessary ICD therapy are not aware of being spared potential harm, whereas patients in whom their ICD failed to treat life-threatening arrhythmias have their event recorded in detail. The revised recommendations employ the principle that the randomized trials and large registry data should guide programming more than anecdotal evidence. These recommendations should not replace the opinion of the treating physician who has considered the patient's clinical status and desired outcome via a shared clinical decision-making process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31960345
doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00662-4
pii: 10.1007/s10840-019-00662-4
pmc: PMC7508744
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM