Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming after first occurrence of ventricular tachycardia in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT)Key Findings

• Main Authors: Mehmet K. Aktas, MD, MBA, FHRS, Amanda L. Bennett, MD, Arwa Younis, MD, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, PhD, FHRS, Bronislava Polonsky, MS, Scott McNitt, MS, Wojciech Zareba, MD, PhD, Spencer Rosero, MD, Ilan Goldenberg, MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2020-06-01
• Series: Heart Rhythm O2
• Subjects: Heart failure; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock; Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock; Ventricular tachycardia
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666501820300337
• ISSN: 2666-5018

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) programming to novel settings can reduce the risk of inappropriate therapies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of novel ICD programming after the first occurrence of ventricular tachycardia (VT). Methods: In MADIT-RIT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Reduce Inappropriate Therapy) patients who experienced a first occurrence of VT, the risk of subsequent inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapies and adverse cardiovascular events by ICD programming to Arm A (conventional: VT ≥170 bpm), Arm B (high rate: VT ≥200 bpm), or Arm C (duration delay: ≥60-second delay before therapy ≥170 bpm) was determined. Results: Among 205 patients, ICD programming changes were made in 30 patients (15%) after they experienced a VT episode; 117 patients (57%) were programmed to Arm A settings and 88 patients (43%) to Arm B/C settings. At 15-month follow-up, the cumulative probability of inappropriate ICD therapy was significantly lower in Arm B/C compared to Arm A (9% vs 20%; log-rank P = .029 for overall difference). The rate of appropriate ICD therapy also was significantly lower in Arm B/C compared to Arm A (32% vs 64%; log-rank P = .001 for overall difference). Multivariate analysis showed that patients programmed to Arm B/C after the occurrence of VT had a 71% reduction (P = .02) in the risk of inappropriate ICD therapies and a 43% reduction (P = .02) in the risk of appropriate ICD therapies compared to Arm A. Conclusion: The benefit of high-rate cutoff or duration delay settings in patients with an ICD is maintained after the first occurrence of VT.