Introduction: Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias are the main cause of inappropriate therapies in patients with conventional single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (VVI-ICD). It was anticipated that dual chamber cardioverter defibrillators (DDD-ICD), with their capacity to analyze atrial and ventricular rhythm, could substantially reduce inappropriate therapies.
Methods and results: Our prospective study included 92 patients (87 men; mean age 61 +/- 12.7 years) who were randomly assigned to a VVI-ICD (45 patients) or a DDD-ICD (47 patients). Both groups were followed for 7.5 +/- 3.5 and 7.6 +/- 4.1 months, respectively. During the follow-up period, overall 725 ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes were recorded in 45 (49%) of 92 patients. Of these episodes, 404 (56%) occurred in the VVI-ICD group and 321 (44%) episodes occurred in the DDD-ICD group. Twenty-three (51%) patients in the VVI-ICD group and 22 (47%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.8) developed VT/VF. Overall, 73 (10%) of 725 treated episodes were inappropriate in 6 (13%) patients in the VVI group and in 10 (21%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.2). There were 22 (31%) inappropriately treated episodes in the VVI-ICD group and 51 (69%) in the DDD-ICD group. Thirty-two of the 51 inappropriate episodes in the DDD-ICD patients resulted from intermittent atrial sensing problems that led to failure of the respective dual chamber algorithms. Nonfatal complications occurred in 6 (13%) patients in the VVI-ICD group and in 3 (6%) patients in the DDD-ICD group (P = 0.7).
Conclusion: We conclude that the implanted DDD-ICD and conventional VVI-ICD are equally safe and effective for therapy of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although DDD-ICDs allow better rhythm classification, the applied detection algorithms do not offer benefits in avoiding inappropriate therapies during supraventricular tachyarrhythmias.