RR Interval Variability in Irregular Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia and Atrial Fibrillation

García‐Alberola, Arcadi; Yli‐Mäyry, Sinikka; Block, Michael S.; Haverkamp, Wilhelm; Martinez-Rubio, A.; Kottkamp, Hans; Breithardt, Günter; Borggrefe, Martin

doi:10.1161/01.cir.93.2.295

Cited by 49 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[13][14][15] Exclusion of supraventricular tachycardias and classification of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular fibrillation, fast VT, and slow VT) were performed by 2 independent investigators. Episodes exceeding the electrogram storage capability of the device were not included in this analysis.…”

Section: Rhythm Classification and Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of cycle length variations on antitachycardia pacing effectiveness among ICD patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Rhythm Classification and Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of cycle length variations on antitachycardia pacing effectiveness among ICD patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, the "sudden-onset" criterion will not detect an exercise-induced sinus tachycardia converting into a slow ventricular tachycardia (VT), and it cannot distinguish a suddenly started, fast-conducting regular atrial flutter from a VT. 26 The "rate stability criterion" will have difficulty in rejecting atrial fibrillation with a fast and rather regular ventricular response and may delay detection of VTs with irregular intervals. These limitations and the lack of controlled studies evaluating the specificity, sensitivity, and safety of these algorithms have probably contributed to their infrequent use.…”

Section: Inappropriate Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse Events With Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

et al. 1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

on behalf of the European 7219 Jewel ICD InvestigatorsBackground-A newly developed classification system relates adverse events to the surgical procedure or the function of the implantable defibrillator. Methods and Results-Adverse events were monitored during prospective clinical evaluation of the Medtronic model 7219Jewel ICD and were classified according to the definitions of the ISO 14155 standard for device clinical trials into 3 groups: severe and mild device-related and severe non-device-related adverse events. In addition, events were related to the surgical procedure, treatment with the device, or cardiac function. Seven hundred seventy-eight patients were followed up for an average of 4.0 months after ICD implantation. In total, 356 adverse events were observed in 259 patients. At 1, 3, and 12 months after ICD implantation, 99%, 98%, and 97% of the patients, respectively, survived; 95%, 93%, and 92%, respectively, were free of surgical reintervention; and 79%, 68%, and 51%, respectively, were free of any adverse event. Twenty patients died: 6 deaths were related to the surgical procedure, 12 deaths were considered unrelated to ICD treatment, and 2 patients died of an unknown cause. Of 111 nonlethal severe adverse device effects, 47 required surgical intervention, 19 times for correction of a dislodged lead. Inappropriate delivery of therapy was observed 128 times in 111 patients, and the events were typically resolved by reprogramming or drug adjustment. Nine of these required rehospitalization. Conclusions-Approximately 50% of patients experience an adverse event within the first year after ICD implantation.The observed adverse event rate depends on the definitions and the prospective monitoring. The incidence of inappropriate therapy emphasizes the need for improved detection algorithms and for quality-of-life evaluations, especially when considering ICD treatment in high-risk but arrhythmia-free patients. (Circulation. 1998;98:663-670.)

show abstract

“…All tip-to-ring-and stored far-field electrograms from spontaneous episodes were classified using predetermined criteria based on visual inspection and comparison with sinus rhythm electrograms [10,11]. Exclusion of supraventricular tachycardias and the classification of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular fibrillation, fast VT and slow VT) were performed by two independent and experienced investigators who reviewed all events.…”

Section: Rhythm Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in ventricular tachyarrythmias and antitachycardia pacing effectiveness according to the ICD indication (primary versus secondary prevention): an analysis based on the stored electrograms

Jiménez‐Candil

Hernández

Martín

et al. 2015

J Interv Card Electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

RR Interval Variability in Irregular Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia and Atrial Fibrillation

Cited by 49 publications

References 21 publications

Influence of cycle length variations on antitachycardia pacing effectiveness among ICD patients

Influence of cycle length variations on antitachycardia pacing effectiveness among ICD patients

Adverse Events With Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Differences in ventricular tachyarrythmias and antitachycardia pacing effectiveness according to the ICD indication (primary versus secondary prevention): an analysis based on the stored electrograms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About