Cardiac &amp;#8216;resynchronization&amp;#8217; by a left lateral accessory pathway

Lezcano, Antonio O. Luque; Aracama, J. M. Porres; Urra, F. Garcia; Ayestaran, Vicente Urbistondo

doi:10.5603/cj.2012.0099

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…TWOS in pacemaker-dependent patients may cause pacing slower than the lower rate limit [1,2]. In cardiac resynchronization therapy, TWOS may also present as loss of biventricular pacing [3,4]. Most importantly, in patients with ICDs, TWOS may cause inappropriate therapy delivery during sinus tachycardia when both the R-T and T-R intervals surpass tachycardia detection rates [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

T-Wave Oversensing with Contemporary Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillators

Strik,

Ploux,

Eschalier

et al. 2023

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) need to reliably detect ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) while avoiding T-wave oversensing (TWOS), which is associated with a risk of inappropriate therapies. The incidence of TWOS with endovascular ICDs appears to differ between manufacturers. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the incidence and clinical consequences of TWOS with contemporary Medtronic and Boston Scientific ICDs. Methods: Consecutive patients implanted with a recent Medtronic or Boston Scientific ICD and remotely monitored at three French centers were included. All transmitted EGMs labelled as VF, VT, non-sustained VT (NSVT), or ventricular oversensing (Medtronic) were screened for TWOS. Results: Among 7589 transmitted episodes from 674 patients with a Boston Scientific ICD, we did not identify a single case of TWOS. Among 16,790 transmitted episodes from 1733 patients with a Medtronic ICD, we identified 60 patients (3.4%) with at least one episode of TWOS. In 46 patients, TWOS was intermittent (NSVT episodes). In the remaining 14 patients, TWOS resulted in 60 sustained episodes (completed counters). No inappropriate therapies were delivered in 12 of these patients because no therapies were programmed (in monitor zones, 11 episodes) or because therapies were inhibited by the morphology discriminator (Wavelet, 19 episodes) or by the anti-TWOS algorithm (26 episodes). Two patients received inappropriate therapies due to TWOS (0.1% of patients with Medtronic ICDs). Conclusion: On review of 24,379 transmitted episodes from 2407 patients with endovascular ICDs, we found no case of TWOS with Boston Scientific devices, whereas TWOS was not uncommon with Medtronic devices. However, the risk of inappropriate therapy with Medtronic ICDs was very low (0.1%) due to the often intermittent nature of this phenomenon, the morphology discriminator, and the anti-TWOS algorithm.

show abstract