Biomedical subjects

Arjun Sharma

Publications and source records attributed to Arjun Sharma.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Improving SVT discrimination in single-chamber ICDs: a new electrogram morphology-based algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: Wide-spread adoption of ICD therapy has focused efforts on improving the quality of life for patients by reducing "inappropriate" shock therapies. To this end, distinguishing supraventricular tachycardia from ventricular tachycardia remains a major challenge for ICDs. More sophisticated discrimination algorithms based on ventricular electrogram morphology have been made practicable by the increased computational ability of modern ICDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report results from a large prospective study (1,122 pts) of a new ventricular electrogram morphology tachycardia discrimination algorithm (Wavelet Dynamic Discrimination, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) operating at minimal algorithm setting (RV coil-can electrogram, match threshold of 70%). This is a nonrandomized cohort study of ICD patients using the morphology discrimination of the Wavelet algorithm to distinguish SVT and VT/VF. The Wavelet criterion was required ON in all patients and all other supraventricular tachycardia discriminators were required to be OFF. Spontaneous episodes (N = 2,235) eligible for ICD therapy were adjudicated for detection algorithm performance. The generalized estimating equations method was used to remove bias introduced when an individual patient contributes multiple episodes. Inappropriate therapies for supraventricular tachycardia were reduced by 78% (90% CI: 72.8-82.9%) for episodes within the range of rates where Wavelet was programmed to discriminate. Sensitivity for sustained ventricular tachycardia was 98.6% (90% CI: 97-99.3%) without the use of high-rate time out. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this prospective study of the Wavelet electrogram morphology discrimination algorithm operating as the sole discriminator in the ON mode demonstrate that inappropriate therapy for supraventricular tachycardia in a single-chamber ICD can be dramatically reduced compared to rate detection alone.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

A comparison of the AVID and DAVID trials of implantable defibrillators.

We compared 2 studies of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) to determine the effects of device mode on outcomes. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial (1993 to 1997) demonstrated improved survival with the ICD compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The Dual-chamber And VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial (2000 to 2002) showed that VVI pacing at 40 beats/min in patients with ICDs reduced the combined end point of death and hospitalization for congestive heart failure compared with DDDR pacing at 70 beats/min. Patients in the AVID trial (631 of 1,016) and the DAVID trial (221 of 506) meeting common inclusion and all exclusion criteria were studied. The major end points were the time to death, and the composite end point of time to death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Patients in the AVID and DAVID trials were similar, but more AVID patients had coronary artery disease (p = 0.04), history of myocardial infarction (p = 0.005), and previous ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.03). DAVID patients underwent more previous revascularization procedures (coronary artery bypass surgery, p = 0.03; percutaneous coronary intervention, p = 0.001), and were more often taking beta-blocking drugs at hospital discharge (p <0.001). The backup VVI ICD groups in both studies had similar outcomes (p = 0.4), even when corrected for the previous demographic differences. The time-to- composite end point was similar in AVID patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs and DAVID patients treated with DDDR ICDs (p = 0.6). Despite improved pharmacologic therapy and revascularization, outcomes have not improved with backup VVI pacing ICDs. If DDDR ICDs had been used in the AVID trial, benefit from ICDs for patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias could have been missed.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2004

The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study: approaches to control rate in atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate approaches used to control rate, the effectiveness of rate control, and switches from one drug class to another in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. BACKGROUND: The AFFIRM study showed that atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated effectively with rate control and anticoagulation, but drug efficacy to control rate remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients (n = 2,027) randomized to rate control in the AFFIRM study were given rate-controlling drugs by their treating physicians. Standardized rate-control efficacy criteria developed a priori included resting heart rate and 6-min walk tests and/or ambulatory electrocardiographic results. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 3.5 +/- 1.3 years. Initial treatment included a beta-adrenergic blocker (beta-blocker) alone in 24%, a calcium channel blocker alone in 17%, digoxin alone in 16%, a beta-blocker and digoxin in 14%, or a calcium channel blocker and digoxin in 14% of patients. Overall rate control was achieved in 70% of patients given beta-blockers as the first drug (with or without digoxin), 54% with calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), and 58% with digoxin alone. Adequate overall rate control was achieved in 58% of patients with the first drug or combination. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between first drug class and several clinical variables. There were more changes to beta-blockers than to the other two-drug classes (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rate control in AF is possible in the majority of patients with AF. Beta-blockers were the most effective drugs. To achieve the goal of adequate rate control in all patients, frequent medication changes and drug combinations were needed.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2003

Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest that right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has deleterious effects. Whether the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) is a more optimal site for permanent pacing in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, cross-over trial to determine whether quality of life (QOL) is better after 3 months of RVOT than RVA pacing in 103 pacemaker recipients with CHF, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < or = 40%), and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). An additional aim was to compare dual-site (RVOT + RVA, 31-ms delay) with single-site RVA and RVOT pacing. QRS duration was shorter during RVOT (167 +/- 45 ms) and dual-site (149 +/- 19 ms) than RVA pacing (180 +/- 58 ms, P < 0.0001). At 6 months, the RVOT group had higher (P = 0.01) role-emotional QOL subscale scores than the RVA group. At 9 months, there were no significant differences in QOL scores between RVOT and RVA groups. Comparing RVOT to RVA pacing within the same patient, mental health subscale scores were better (P = 0.03) during RVOT pacing. After 9 months of follow-up, LVEF was higher (P = 0.04) in those assigned to RVA rather than RVOT pacing between months 6 and 9. After 3 months of dual-site RV pacing, physical functioning was worse (P = 0.04) than during RVA pacing, mental health was worse (P = 0.02) than during RVOT pacing, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was slightly better (P = 0.03) than during RVOT pacing. There were no other significant differences between RVA, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing in QOL scores, NYHA class, distance walked in 6 minutes, LV ejection fraction, or mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: In patients with CHF, LV dysfunction, and chronic AF, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing shorten QRS duration but after 3 months do not consistently improve QOL or other clinical outcomes compared with RVA pacing.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.

CONTEXT: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. DESIGN: The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. INTERVENTIONS: All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. RESULTS: One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. CONCLUSION: For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗