Generic icd programming and outcomes.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nGeneric ICD programming, where shock-reduction programming is extrapolated from trials of one manufacturer to another, may reduce non-essential ICD therapies beyond that seen in randomised trials. However, the benefits and risks are unknown. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of a standardised programming protocol, based on generic programming, across manufacturers.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe included all new ICDs in a single centre (2009-2019). In 2013 a standardised programming protocol based on generic programming was introduced, incorporating high detection rates (200 bpm for primary prevention) and long detection (30/40 or equivalent in VF zone) for all patients. Patients were classified into three groups based on implant programming : pre-guideline (PS), post-guideline and guideline compliant (GC) and post-guideline but not guideline compliant (NGC). The end-points were the first occurrence of any device therapy (ATP or shock), ICD shock, syncope and all-cause mortality. Survival analysis was used to evaluate outcomes.\n\n\nRESULTS\n1003 patients were included (mean follow-up 1519 +/- 1005 days). In primary prevention patients (n = 583) freedom from ICD therapy (91.5% vs. 73.6%, p<0.001) or shock (94.7% vs 84.8%, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without significant increase in syncope or mortality. In secondary prevention patients (n = 420) freedom from any ICD therapy or any shock were non-significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without an increase in syncope or mortality.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn primary prevention patients a standardised programming protocol, incorporating generic programming, reduced the burden of ICD therapy without an increase in adverse outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.