Jones, Paul W.

ICD Characteristics and Survival in Young PatientsIntroductionIndications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in young patients have expanded and differ from those in older adults. We sought to provide descriptive characteristics and data regarding ICD therapy and outcomes among younger and older ICD recipients.Methods and ResultsDemographics, device type and programming, remotely transmitted data, shock events, and survival were compared among younger (≤30 years) and older (>30 years) cohorts with ICDs from a single manufacturer followed on a remote network. The younger cohort included 904 patients (1.6% of all implants). This group had more females (46% vs. 25%; P < 0.01), single‐coil leads (21% vs. 4%; P < 0.01), and single‐chamber devices (46% vs. 34%; P < 0.01). Shock incidence was higher (40% younger vs. 32% older at 4 years; P < 0.01) and survival was better over comparable follow‐up (88% vs. 72%; P < 0.01). Remote monitoring was associated with improved survival in both groups (93% vs. 86% ≤ 30 years, P < 0.01; 73% vs. 66% > 30 years, P < 0.01). Shock for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) was more frequent in younger patients (12% vs. 5%; P < 0.01); 39% of all shocks were inappropriate. A 10‐fold increased risk of mortality was seen among young patients with shocks for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL).ConclusionsDifferences in survival, shock incidence, and prognostic significance of VT/VF and AF/AFL exist between younger and older ICD recipients. These suggest distinct differences in myocardial substrates and diseases that ultimately impact ICD management.

Background Physical activity data are collected automatically by implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators ( ICD s). Though these data potentially provide a quantifiable and easily accessible measure of functional status, its relationship with survival has not been well studied. Methods and Results Patients enrolled in the Boston Scientific LATITUDE remote monitoring system from 2008 to 2012 with ICD s were eligible. Remote monitoring data were used to calculate mean daily activity at baseline (30 to 60 days after implantation), and longitudinally. Cox regression was used to examine the association between survival and increments of 30 minutes/day in both (1) mean baseline activity and (2) time‐varying activity, with both adjusted for demographic and device characteristics. A total of 98 437 patients were followed for a median of 2.2 years (mean age of 67.7±13.1 years; 71.7% male). Mean baseline daily activity was 107.5±66.2 minutes/day. The proportion of patients surviving after 4 years was significantly higher among those in the most versus least active quintile of mean baseline activity (90.5% vs. 50.0%; log‐rank P value, <0.001). Lower mean baseline activity (i.e., incremental difference of 30‐minutes/day) was independently associated with a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [ AHR ], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [ CI ], 1.427 to 1.462). Time‐varying activity was similarly associated with a higher risk of death ( AHR , 1.48; 95% CI , 1.451 to 1.508), indicating that a patient having 30 minutes per day less activity in a given month has a 48% increased hazard for death when compared to a similar patient in the same month. Conclusions Patient activity measured by ICD s strongly correlates with survival following ICD implantation.

IntroductionAdjudication of thousands of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)‐treated arrhythmia episodes is labor intensive and, as a result, is most often left undone. The objective of this study was to evaluate an automatic classification algorithm for adjudication of ICD‐treated arrhythmia episodes.MethodsThe algorithm uses a machine learning algorithm and was developed using 776 arrhythmia episodes. The algorithm was validated on 131 dual‐chamber ICD shock episodes from 127 patients adjudicated by seven electrophysiologists (EPs). Episodes were classified by panel consensus as ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) or non‐VT/VF, with the resulting classifications used as the reference. Subsequently, each episode electrogram (EGM) data was randomly assigned to three EPs without the atrial lead information, and to three EPs with the atrial lead information. Those episodes were also classified by the automatic algorithm with and without atrial information. Agreement with the reference was compared between the three EPs consensus group and the algorithm.ResultsThe overall agreement with the reference was similar between three‐EP consensus and the algorithm for both with atrial EGM (94% vs 95%, P = 0.87) and without atrial EGM (90% vs 91%, P = 0.91). The odds of accurate adjudication, after adjusting for covariates, did not significantly differ between the algorithm and EP consensus (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.97–1.06).ConclusionsThis algorithm performs at a level comparable to an EP panel in the adjudication of arrhythmia episodes treated by both dual‐ and single‐chamber ICDs. This type of algorithm has the potential for automated analysis of clinical ICD episodes, and adjudication of EGMs for research studies and quality analyses.

Background— Outcome data for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy–defibrillator (CRT-D) devices treated outside of clinical trials are lacking. No clinical trial has evaluated mortality after device implantation or after shock therapy in large numbers of patients with implanted devices that regularly transmit device data over a network. Methods and Results— Survival status in patients implanted with ICD and CRT devices across the United States from a single manufacturer was assessed. Outcomes were compared between patients followed in device clinic settings and those who regularly transmit remote data collected from the device an average of 4 times monthly. Shock delivery and electrogram analysis could be ascertained from patients followed on the network, enabling survival after ICD shock to be evaluated. One- and 5-year survival rates in 185 778 patients after ICD implantation were 92% and 68% and were 88% and 54% for CRT-D device recipients. In 8228 patients implanted with CRT-only devices, survival was 82% and 48% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. For the 69 556 ICD and CRT-D patients receiving remote follow-up on the network, 1- and 5-year survival rates were higher compared with those in the 116 222 patients who received device follow-up in device clinics only (50% reduction; P <0.0001). There were no differences between patients followed on or off the remote network for the characteristics of age, gender, implanted device year or type, and economic or educational status. Shock therapy was associated with subsequent mortality risk for both ICD and CRT-D recipients. Conclusions— Survival after ICD and CRT-D implantation in patients treated in naturalistic practice compares favorably with survival rates observed in clinical trials. Remote follow-up of device data is associated with excellent survival, but arrhythmias that result in device therapy in this population are associated with a higher mortality risk compared with patients who do not require shock therapy.