Abstract

Aims

This randomized trial evaluated clinically significant adverse events (CSAEs), in patients implanted with dual-chamber (DC) vs. single-chamber (SC) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). DC-ICD had atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) therapy capabilities. Strict programming recommendations were reinforced.

Methods and results

Patients with conventional SC-ICD indication were randomized to DC-ICD, SC-ICD, or a DC-ICD programmed as an SC-ICD (SC-simulated) and followed for 16 months. Patients in the DC and SC-simulated groups crossed over after 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of CSAE: all-cause mortality; invasive intervention; hospitalization (>24 h) for cardiovascular causes; inappropriate shocks (two or more episodes); and sustained symptomatic AT lasting >48 h. The outcome variable was a pre-specified score that corrected for clinical severity and follow-up duration. Three hundred and thirty-four patients were analysed (DC-ICD, n = 112; SC-ICD, n = 111; SC-simulated, n = 111). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.36 ± 0.13, 69% were in functional class ≥II. CSAE occurred in 65 DC-ICD, 82 SC-ICD, and 84 SC-simulated patients. The outcome variable was 33% lower in the DC-ICD group (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.14–0.67; P = 0.0028). Mortality was 4% in DC, 9% in SC, and 10% in SC-simulated.

Conclusion

In patients with a standard SC-ICD indication, DC-ICD was associated with less CSAE when compared with SC-ICD.

The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal, Learned Society and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions©oxfordjournals.org.
You do not currently have access to this article.