© 2004 by European Society of Cardiology
The DATAS rationale and design: a controlled, randomized trial to assess the clinical benefit of dual chamber (DDED) defibrillator*
aCardiology Department, Hospital General Universitario Valencia, Spain; bDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marańon Madrid, Spain; cArrhythmia Unit, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre Madrid, Spain; dHeart Diseases Department, San Filippo Neri Hospital Rome, Italy; e1st Department of Medicine–Cardiology, University Hospital Mannheim Mannheim, Germany; fCardiology Department, Santa Cruz Hospital, Carnaxide, Portugal ; gDepartamento de Estadistica e Investigacion Operativa, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya Barcelona, Spain; hScientific & Clinical Department Medtronic Ibérica, Spain
Manuscript submitted 5 September 2003. Accepted after revision 23 November 2003.
*Corresponding author. C/Gongora 1, 26, Valencia 46015, Spain. E-mail address: quesada_aur{at}gva.es (A. Quesada).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Single chamber (SC) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have several limitations that might be relevant during follow-up, like atrial pacing requirements, inadequate therapies, sustained atrial tachyarrhythmias and difficulties to achieve an accurate diagnosis of the arrhythmia. Dual chamber (DC) ICDs offer an attractive and rational solution, although controversy remains if the costs and complexity of these devices offer a real clinical advantage. The Dual Chamber & Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse Events Study (DATAS) was designed to analyze the ability of DC ICD, DDED, to reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with SC ICD in a non-selected population with conventional indications for ICD implantation. This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, open labelled study, with three arms: two of them (simulated SC ICD and true DC ICD) cross-over, and the third (true SC ICD) parallels the other two. The composite primary end point comprises four Clinically Significant Adverse Events (CSAE): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) invasive intervention, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization due to cardiovascular cause, (3) inappropriate shocks, and (4) sustained symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias that (a) require urgent termination or (b) last more than 48 h leading to therapeutic intervention. Secondary end points constitute each of the individual components of CSAE, cardiovascular status, quality of life and a detailed analysis of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. To date (June 2003) there have been 343 patients enroled from 947 screened patients. The projected enrolment includes 360 patients and the conclusion of the study is expected at the beginning of 2005.
Key Words: implantable cardioverter defibrillators, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachyarrhythmias, clinical trial
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Controlled clinical studies have demonstrated that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in reducing death (AVID, MADIT, MUSTT) [1–
4], leading to widespread use of these devices. Nevertheless, presently available single chamber (SC) ICDs have at least four main limitations that might be relevant during follow-up: (1) loss of AV synchrony in patients requiring pacing [5,6]; (2) inappropriate therapies [7,8] despite the activation of so-called "additional criteria" [9]; (3) sustained atrial tachyarrhythmias for which no therapy is provided [10,11]; (4) difficulties to achieve an accurate diagnosis of the arrhythmia from the stored electrograms [12,13].
These problems might be circumvented by using standard antiarrhythmic therapies (drugs, electrical cardioversion, ablation) [14–16] and/or dual chamber ICDs [17,18]. Dual chamber (DC) ICDs offer an attractive solution, although there are some concerns about atrial lead related complications, value of atrial therapies and AV discrimination algorithm performance [19,20]. Recent data from two controlled studies have questioned long-term safety and efficacy of these devices [21,22]. In fact, to date there is only a consensus on implantation of DC ICD in patients with marked sinus dysfunction or 2nd–3rd degree AV [17,23], and controversy remains if the costs and complexity of the implants offer a real clinical advantage.
The Dual Chamber & Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse Events Study (DATAS) was designed to analyze the ability of DC ICD, DDED [24], to reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with SC ICD in a non-selected population with conventional indications for ICD implantation.
|
Justification of the study |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Four main situations in which DC ICD is potentially beneficial in comparison with SC ICD can be anticipated to be:
- Loss of normal atrial rate and atrioventricular synchrony. Over 15% of ICD patients may need atrial pacing-sensing, half of them undetectable at the time of ICD pre-implant evaluation [25–29]. Drugs commonly used to treat heart failure or arrhythmias, betablockers, sotalol and amiodarone [30,31], frequently cause bradycardia at optimal doses for which VVI pacing may offer a suboptimal backup [32,33].
- Inappropriate discrimination of supraventricular and ventricular events. Inappropriate therapies and shocks may hamper quality of life [34], cause proarrhythmia, hospitalization and even death [35,36]. The percentage of patients with inadequate shocks in single chamber devices may reach 40% [7,10], the most frequent causes being a fast ventricular rhythm caused by atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus tachycardia. Nevertheless, although enhanced criteria (i.e. sudden onset, stability and width) can improve the specificity of the diagnostics to more than 90%, the sensitivity can be reduced to 80% or less [37–39].
- Accuracy in the diagnosis of arrhythmias by stored electrograms. Analysis of morphology of stored ventricular electrograms can provide some clues as to the site of origin of arrhythmias [13,40], however, the ability for such differential diagnosis is limited. Direct recording of atrial rhythm by a dedicated atrial lead should allow more accurate discrimination [41]. Recognition of more than one tachycardia (a condition not rare in ICD recipients) is not possible without atrial electrograms [42].
- Prevention and/or therapy of significantly prevalent atrial tachyarrhythmias. In the AVID population one fourth of the patients had AF [1], and the same high prevalence has been found in other series of patients after ICD implantation [7,8]. Data from SOLVD studies suggest that atrial fibrillation is associated with increasing mortality by impairing left ventricular systolic function [43]. Therefore, prevention and management of AF may improve outcome. Atrial therapies, have demonstrated a high success rate in suppressing atrial arrhythmias [44–48]. Efficacy of atrial antitachycardia pacing ranges from 55% to 66% and the adjusted success rate of atrial shock for atrial fibrillation is more than 60% [46]. Adequate timing of therapies for AF can avoid the dangerous consequences of conversion to sinus rhythm in patients without anticoagulation [49].
Reasons commonly used not to implant DC ICDs include [20,50,51]: (1) higher cost of DC devices, (2) higher complication rate, related to the insertion of an atrial lead, (3) prolongation of operation and hospitalization time, (4) higher complexity of follow-up procedures, (5) low compliance of patients with the atrial shocks, and (6) uncertainties about a clinically significant reduction in adverse events during follow-up.
The main issue to be clarified is whether tolerability and reduction of significant clinical problems of DC ICD are offset by the potential benefits in the majority of ICD patients. It should be emphasized that the investigators feel strongly that it is this clinical benefit that needs to be measured as opposed to "pure electrical phenomena" with uncertain clinical implications.
|
Study objectives |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
This clinical study is designed to assess the ability of DDED DC ICD to reduce clinically significant adverse events in patients with class I indication for VVEV-VVI conventional ICD therapy. The primary end point is a composite comprising four so-denominated "Clinically Significant Adverse Events" (CSAE): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) invasive intervention, hospitalization (>24 h) or prolongation of hospitalization due to cardiovascular cause, (3) inappropriate shocks (two or more episodes with inappropriate shocks), and (4) sustained symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias that (a) require urgent termination or (b) last more than 48 h leading to therapeutic intervention. CSAE will not include cardiac catheterization with/without revascularization scheduled routinely during follow-up. The primary objective of this trial is to determine whether use of DDED ICD results in a significant decrease in the number of primary end points.
Secondary end points constitute each of the individual components of CSAE, cardiovascular status (functional and echo parameters), quality of life and a detailed analysis of atrial arrhythmias (types, burden, time course, consequences, etc). Secondary objectives are:
- Number of each of the components of the CSAE.
- Arrhythmia related: atrial tachyarrhythmia, frequency and burden, ventricular tachyarrhythmia frequency and burden number of appropriate shocks, number of inappropriate shocks, need for reprogramming, need for medication/RFA for arrhythmia control, pacemaker syndrome and development of dual chamber pacing indication.
- Cardiovascular related: NYHA functional class, exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), reduction of medication (diuretics...).
- Quality of life: evaluated by the SF-36, Minnesota living test, with heart failure and Symptom Checklist instruments.
|
Study design, randomization and data collection |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The DATAS is a, prospective, multicentre, randomized, open labelled study, with three arms (two of them cross-over and the third parallels the other two) (Fig. 1). About 36 centres in Spain, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Portugal and Israel will participate. The projected enrolment includes 360 patients. The first implant took place in November 2000 and the duration of the study (including patient enrolment, follow-up, data analysis, and regulatory approval) was expected to be 48 months. To date (June 2003) there are 343 patients enroled from 947 screened patients. Documented approval of the investigational plan by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee (EC) affiliated with the study centre is required for starting the study. Patient written informed consent is also required before enrolment.
|
A web site (http://www.rdes.com/datas) has been specifically designed for this study by an independent company (Remote Data Entry System S.L., Barcelona, Spain). Through this site the randomization and data entry with electronic case report forms are completed and sent to a central database, where the Data Revision Committee can review them.
The study design is depicted in Fig. 1. Patients will be randomized to one of three arms: SC ICD ("SC true arm"), DC ICD initially programmed as SC (SC simulated) ICD ("SC sim arm") and DC ICD initially programmed as a DDED ("DC true arm").
No waiting period after implant has been allowed in order to evaluate the lead fixation issues, and the possible beneficial mechanisms for atrial prevention pacing algorithms. On the other hand a 1-month wash out period after the cross-over is included to avoid influence of the remodeling associated with pacing mode.
The randomization procedure will be centralized through the web site, balancing the sample size of all three arms over the different centres. At the beginning of the study there will be at least six consecutive patients to be enroled by a participating centre. A log of all excluded patients is kept in each centre to avoid any possible selection bias. Later enrolment must also include at least three consecutive patients.
Patients will be followed-up at 1, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 17 months. At enrolment, 8 and 17 months, the quality of life questionnaires, 6 min walk test and echo parameters will be recorded, as well as reevaluation of the cardiovascular history.
An Adverse Events Advisory Committee has been created to analyze blindly: (1) the classification of adverse events and validation of primary end points; (2) the classification and validation of device episodes related to adverse events.
|
Patient eligibility criteria |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
All patients' candidates for ICD will be initially screened in each centre (Fig. 1). The study population will include those patients who are appropriate candidates for standard Class I criteria for a single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).
Exclusion criteria will be the accepted indications (symptomatic sinus node disease, all 2nd AV block, except asymptomatic Mobitz I, and all 3rd degree AV block) and contraindications (permanent atrial tachyarrhythmias) for dual chamber pacing. Patients without structural heart disease, an indication for biventricular pacing or with a previous system implanted (ICD or pacemaker) will also be excluded.
|
ICD devices and programming |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
DDED devices are to be used for this investigation, which must have automatic atrial tiered antitachycardia therapies and may be programmed in monitor mode to store data from atrial arrhythmic events without delivering atrial therapy. Devices used in the trial included Jewel AF (model 7250) and GEM III AT (model 7276; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) as dual chamber devices and GEM family (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) as single chamber devices. The dual chamber algorithm (PR Logic) discriminates between supraventricular and ventricular tachycardias, and detects AT/AF accurately and continuously [45,
52].
The atrial lead could be any commercially available bipolar atrial pace/sense lead with tip-ring spacing 
10 mm, and the ventricular lead could be any commercially available ventricular pace/sense leads with two defibrillation coils.
Intraoperative implantation procedures will be performed according to the standards of each centre. Programming the ICD should also meet clinical standards in every centre, but some general rules were strongly recommended:
- Supraventricular arrhythmia discrimination in SC by using stability criteria
- A VT zone with ATP therapies
- Low pacing rates (50 bpm or less) in SC and, in DC, 70 bpm was encouraged to prevent atrial tachyarrhythmias, but with prolonged AV intervals (recommended values: paced AV 230 ms and sensed AV 200 ms) in an attempt to reduce right ventricle pacing.
- Therapies for atrial arrhythmias were programmed as follows: nominal pacing therapies with no delay after detection; for atrial arrhythmias as soon as detected, first high energy shock automatically delivered in less than 24 h after episode onset, and programming for subsequent episodes at the investigator's discretion and according to patient tolerance.
- A VT zone with ATP therapies
|
Statistical analysis |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
The main objective is reduction of the number of CSAE. The primary response variable is the sum of the four CSAEs. The main comparison is SC ICD (SC true) versus DDD ICD (DC true). It should be noted that: (a) the DC true group will double the number of patients since it will pool together patients from the two cross-over arms (DC true SC sim and SC sim-DC true) and (b) the SC true group will be followed for a longer period of time (17 months). In order to get a single response measure, the addition of the number of any of these four CSAE was defined as the primary end point. This variable will be sensitive both to reductions in the number of patients with CSAE as well as in the number of CSAEs per patient. SC simulated will be used for a precise evaluation of the impact of dual chamber therapy on atrial tachyarrhythmia burden and SVT/VT discrimination.
The main statistical analysis (p-values and confidence intervals) will be based on the ordinal Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon statistical method [53]. To take into account the different follow-up for the two groups (twice 8 months versus 17 months), the ranks will be calculated for the rate of CSAE instead of the proportion of CSAE.
Sample size and power for the main analysis
The assumed effect of the DC treatment is a reduction of 15% both in the proportion (
) of patients with tendency to develop a CSAE (from 30% to 15%), as well as in the mean (M) of CSAE over all patients (from 6 to 5.1). The estimated sample size was 200 (DC true) versus 100 (SC true) patients followed for 8 months, with a two sided 
=0.05, and a power of 88.8%. The power of the study has been explored through simulation of 10,000 samples with the SAS system. The number of replications allows for a confidence interval (1–=0.95) in the estimation of the power with an amplitude equal to ą1%. To protect against dropouts, observational compliance, losses to follow-up, or protocol deviations the sample size was fixed at 360 patients (120 patients per arm).
Other considerations
If the treating physician decides that a patient could benefit from programming to the opposite treatment arm, the premature cross-over should be authorized by the adverse event committee. The intention to treat principle will be assured by counting CSAE in the original arm as it represents a normal medical situation of success and failure of delivering the planned therapy. The main analysis will be fully specified in a blind statistical analysis plan approved by the steering committee before the end of the trial.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
Key issues in the study design
Since the primary objective is to compare DDED ICD (DC true) to VVEV ICD (SC true) in terms of reducing CSAE, at first glance, a simple two-arm comparison might suffice. However, some of the questions related to atrial arrhythmias and VT/SVT discrimination could only be answered with direct information about atrial activity, i.e. through direct recordings of atrial electrograms. In addition, a cross-over design provides intraindividual comparisons. These considerations would argue in favour of a study design in which all patients get a DC device but half of them are initially programmed as an SC device (as far as therapy is concerned but providing full information about events), crossing over later to DC therapy. Nevertheless, this study design would penalize the "SC programmed" population with all the risks associated with DC devices, mainly a more complex implantation procedure and a potential for a higher surgical and electrode-related complication rate. In addition, it is conceivable that the atrial electrode could transiently "irritate" the atrial chambers.
Therefore a three-arm design was chosen, having a true SC arm and two DC arms. One DC arm will be programmed as an "SC only therapy" (or "simulated SC arm") and the other as a DC therapy ("true DC arm"). These two DC arms will undergo a cross-over programming after half of the projected follow-up period (8 months). With this design all three groups of therapy may be compared in similar conditions for number and length of follow-up, and the very important aspects included in the secondary objectives will be appropriately analyzed.
Other studies and DATAS
Two somewhat similar studies have recently been published. The DAVID trial [22] assessed the hypothesis that dual chamber pacing was superior to backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation and LVEF of 40% or less without indications for antibradycardia pacing. The study was prematurely stopped because the conditional power for the original alternative (DDDR-70 being better than VVI-40) was less than 10%. In fact, "...a trend (p<0.03) towards a worse outcome with DDDR-70 pacing was established...". It was also found that "Patients who survived to the 3-month follow-up have worse 12-month event-free rates when the percentage of right ventricular pacing by ICD interrogation was 41–100% (75.9%) than when less than 40% (86.9%) (p=0.09)". The authors feel that their own along with recently published data [54] suggest that right ventricular stimulation is inappropriate and causes increased heart failure by the mechanism of ventricular desynchronization. The specific programming choices (AV interval was not controlled) could have affected their results, since nearly 60% of all ventricular beats were paced in the DDDR-70 group.
In the study of Deisenhofer et al. [21], 92 patients were randomly assigned to a VVI-ICD or a DDD ICD during a mean follow-up of 7.5 months. Although DDD ICDs allowed a better rhythm classification, the applied detection algorithms offer no advantages in avoiding inappropriate therapies during SVTs. It should be emphasized that in these series, 75% of inappropriate therapies in the DDD ICD group were due to atrial sensing problems, either oversensing or undersensing. This seems to be an unexpectedly high rate. In the DATAS trial we will enrol patients implanted in 36 European centres and we will be able to assess the actual rate of atrial lead related complications in a large number of expert centres.
In contrast, in DATAS: (a) the recommended programming includes an AV interval of 200 ms (instead of 180 ms) or whatever was needed to avoid ventricular pacing; (b) the devices can treat atrial tachyarrhythmias electrically; (c) no cut-off value of LVEF was required; (d) resynchronization indication was an exclusion criterion; and (e) each arm will have a 17 month follow-up.
Final considerations
When the DAVID was published, the Steering Committee of DATAS felt that the potentially deleterious effect of ventricular pacing should be checked. The mean percentage of ventricular paced beats in the 62 patients assigned to the DDD arm, who completed the first 8-month follow-up period, was 36%, far below the 60% found in DAVID, and below the 40% security limit described in MOST and DAVID. Since safety is not of concern in DATAS, and in view of some design differences (i.e., a true VVI arm) there is no reason to stop the study.
The DATAS design (with a VVI true arm and longer follow-up) will provide important information about the effects of AV discrimination algorithms, atrial antibradycardia and antitachycardia therapies (with long AV delays to prevent unnecessary ventricular stimulation) and will help to define the actual indications for dual chamber defibrillators.
|
Appendix |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
DATAS Participating Investigators, Centers and Enrolments: B. Lüderitz, J. Schwab, T. Lewalter, R. Schimpf, University Hospital, Bonn, Germany (30); M. Santini, R. Ricci, C. Pignalberi, M. Russo, San Filippo Neri, Rome, Italy (27); P. Hanrath, Ch. Stellbrink, K. Mischke, R. Koos, University Hospital RWTH, Aachen, Germany (24); J. Brugada, L. Mont, M. Matas, H. Clinic I Provincial, Barcelona, Spain (18); J. Gill, R. Simon, A. Rinaldi, N. Gall, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK (18); M. Glikson, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel (15); C. Muto, M. Canciello, G. Carreras, B. Tuccillo, Loreto Mare Hospital, Naples, Italy (15); J. Roda, S. Villalba, V. Palanca, J. Belchi, H. General Universitario, Valencia, Spain (15); M. Borggrefe, S. Spehl, 1st Department of Medicine–Cardiology, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany (12); J.L. Merino, R. Peinado, H. La Paz, Madrid, Spain (12); A. Arenal, E. Gonzalez-Torrecillas, F. Atienza, H. Gregorio Marańon, Madrid, Spain (11); J.C. Rodriguez, O. Medina, J. García, H. Insular de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain (10); G. Steinbeck, E. Hoffman, S. Janko, U. Dorwarth, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Hospital, München, Germany (9); F. Morgado, Santa Cruz, Lisbon, Portugal (9); I. Lozano, J. Toquero, R. Arroyo, H. Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain (9); J.M. Ormaetxe, M. Arkotxa, H. de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain (9); M. Geist, V. Turkisher, Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel (6); P. Della Bella, G. Fassini, C. Carbucicchio, F. Giraldi, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milano, Italy (6); P. Golino, M. Viscusi, F. Mascia, Hospedale Civile, Caserta, Italy (6); L. Tercedor, M. Alvarez, H. Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain (6); J.G. Martinez, A. Ibańez, H. General Universitario, Alicante, Spain (6); A. Moya, E. Rodriguez, C. Alonso, H. Valle Hebron, Barcelona, Spain (6); M. Lopez Gil, J. Sanz, H. 12 Octubre, Madrid, Spain (6); R. Garcia-Civera, R. Ruiz, S. Morell, R. SanJuan, H. Clinico Universitario, Valencia, Spain (6); A. García-Alberola, J. Martinez, J.J. Sanchez, H. Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain (6); S. Hohnloser, G. Grönefeld, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany (5); J.J. Manzano, A. Medina, E. Caballero, F. Wangüemert, H. General Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas, Spain (5); B. Lemke, T. Lawo, T. Deneke, S. Holt, BG Kliniken Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Germany (5); M. Manz, D. Burkhardt, A. Markewitz, Krankenhaus Marienhof, Koblenz, Germany (5); E. Castellanos, L. Rodriguez-Padial, H. Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain (5); W. Jung, N. Schwick, B. Roggenbuck-Schwilk, Klinikum Villingen-Schwenningen, Villingen, Germany (4); T Fuchs, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Tzerifin, Israel (4); M. Sassara, A. Achilli, E. Scabbia, Civile Hospital, Viterbo, Italy (4); J. Olagüe, J.E. Pareja, M.J. Sancho-Tello, H. La Fe, Valencia, Spain (4); A. Maresta, S. Silvani, D. Cornacchia, E. Tampieri, Civile Hospital, Ravenna, Italy (3); G. Baumann, H. Bondke, M. Claus, Campus Charite Mitte, Berlin, Germany (3).
DATAS Data Coordination and Review Committee: M. Ortiz, Madrid, Spain.
DATAS Adverse Event Committee: J.A. Garcia Robles, Madrid, Spain; T. Korte, Hannover, Germany; X. Vińolas, Barcelona, Spain; M. Zoni Berisso, Genova, Italy.
DATAS Study Statistician and Analyst: E. Cobo, Dept. Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya, Spain.
DATAS Steering Committee: A. Quesada, Valencia, Spain; J. Almendral, F. Arribas, Madrid, Spain; M. Santini, Rome, Italy; C. Wolpert, Mannheim, Germany; P. Adragao, Carnaxide, Portugal; X. Navarro, Barcelona, Spain.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
This work is supported by a grant from Medtronic Inc (Minneapolis, USA).
|
Footnotes |
|---|
*The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number is ISRCTN82728969.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionJustification of the studyStudy objectivesStudy design, randomization and...Patient eligibility criteriaICD devices and programmingStatistical analysisDiscussionAppendixAcknowledgementsReferences |
|---|
[1] The AVID investigators. A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1576–1583.
[2] Moss A.J., Hall J., Cannom D.S., et al. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1933–1940.
[3] Buxton A.E., Lee K.L., Fisher J.D., et al. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1882–1890.
[4] Connolly S.J., Hallstrom A., Cappato R., et al. on behalf of the investigators or the AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 2071–2078.
[5] Santini M., Ansalone G., Auriti A., Magris B., Pandozi C., Altamura G. Indications for dual chamber (DDD) pacing in ICD patients. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 116–118.[Medline]
[6] Best P.J., Hayes D.L., Stanton M.S. The potential usage of dual chamber pacing in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22: 79–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
[7] Grimm W., Flores B., Marchlinski F.E. Electrocardiographically documented unnecessary, spontaneous shocks in 241 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1992; 15: 1667–1673.[CrossRef][Medline]
[8] Ryan S., Siemon G., Drogemuller A., et al. 2 year follow-up of 321 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: comparison of patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Z Kardiol 2001; 90: 906–915.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[9] Nunain S.O., Roelke M.D., Trouton T., et al. Limitations and late complications of third generation automatic cardioverter defibrillators. Circulation 1995; 91: 2204–2213.
[10] Schmitt C., Montero M., Melichercik J. Significance of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with implanted pacing cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 17: 295–302.[CrossRef][Medline]
[11] Neuzner J. and Petschner H.F. Managing the problem of atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with ICDs. Practice and progress in cardiac pacing and electrophysiology. 1996; Kluwer Academic Publishers 353–360.
[12] Neuzner J., Pitschner H.F., Konig S., Stohring R., Schlepper M. Stored electrogram in cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: accuracy of rhythm diagnosis in 335 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes. J Ambulatory Monit 1995; 8: 1–9.
[13] Marchlinski F.E., Callans D.J., Gottlieb C.D., Schwartzman D., Preminger M. Benefits and lessons learned from stored electrogram information in implantable defibrillators. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1995; 832–851.
[14] Epstein A.E., Kay G.N., Plumb V.J., Shepard R.B., Kirklin J.K. Combined automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker systems: implantation techniques and follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 13: 121–131.[Abstract]
[15] Calkins H., Brinker J., Veltri E., Levine J.H. Clinical interactions between pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 16: 666–673.[Abstract]
[16] Hook B.G., Callans D.J., Kleiman R.B., Flores B., Marchlinski F.E. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators therapy in the absence of significant symptoms. Rhythm diagnosis and management aided by stored electrogram analysis. Circulation 1993; 87: 1897–1906.
[17] Trappe H., Achtelik M., Pfitzner P., Voigt B., Weismuller P. Single-chamber versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator: indications and clinical results. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 8D–16D.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[18] Osswald S., Cron T.A., Sterns L., Alt E., Stotts L., Coenen M. New ICD-technologies: first clinical experience with dual-chamber sensing for differentiation of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21: 292–295.[Medline]
[19] Olson W. Dual chamber sensing and detection for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. In Singer I., Barold S.S., Camm A.J. (Eds.). Nonpharmacological therapy of arrhythmias for the 21st century: the state of the art 1998; Armonk, NY Futura Publishing Co, Inc pp. 385–395.
[20] Sticherling C., Schaumann A., Klingenheben T., Hohnloser S. for the Ventak AV II DR investigators. First worldwide clinical experience with a new dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Europace 1999; 1: 96–99.
[21] Deisenhofer I., Kolb Ch., Ndrepepa G., et al. Do current dual chamber cardioverter defibrillators have advantages over conventional single chamber cardioverter defibrillators in reducing inappropriate therapies? A randomized, prospective study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001; 12: 134–142.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[22] The dual chamber and VVI implantable defibrillator (DAVID) trial. Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 3115–3123.
[23] Gregoratos G., Abrams J., Epstein A.E., et al. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines). Circulation 2002; 106: 2145–2161.
[24] Bernstein A.D., Camm A.J., Fisher J.D., et al. The North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology policy statement. The NASPE/BPEG Defibrillation Code. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1993; 16: 1776–1780.[CrossRef][Medline]
[25] Geelen P., Lorga A., Chauvin M., Wellens F., Brugada P. The value of DDD pacing in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20: 177–181.[CrossRef][Medline]
[26] Mattke S., Markewitz A., Muller D., et al. The combined transvenous implantation of cardioverter defibrillators and permanent pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20: 2775–2782.[CrossRef][Medline]
[27] Higgins S.L., Williams S.K., Pak J.P., Meyer D.B. Indications for implantation of a dual chamber pacemaker combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 1360–1362.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[28] Sutandar A., Solimon S., Kaddaha R., Vloka M., Steinberg J. Should all patients receive a dual chamber device? Unanticipated use of the implantable defibrillator as a pacemaker. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35:Suppl_A 127.
[29] Proclemer A., Della Bella P., Facchin D., et al. Indications for dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillators at implant and at 1 year follow-up: a retrospective analysis in the single-chamber defibrillator era. Europace 2001; 3: 132–135.
[30] Pacífico A., Hohnloser S., Williams J., Tao B., Saksena S., Henry P., et al. Prevention of implantable-defibrillator shocks by treatment with sotalol. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1855–1862.
[31] Packer M., Coats A., Fowler M., et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in patients with severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1651–1658.
[32] Reiter M.J. and Hindman M.C. Hemodynamic effects of acute atrioventricular sequential pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual-chamber pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 1542–1549.[Abstract]
[33] Andersen H.R., Nielsen J.C., Thomsen P.E.B., Thuesen L., Mortensen P.T., Vesterlund T., et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet 1997; 350: 1210–1216.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[34] Lüderitz B., Jung W., Deister A., Marneros A., Manz A. Patient acceptance of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1993; 16: 1815–1821.[CrossRef][Medline]
[35] Jones G., Johnson G., Troutman C., et al. Incidence of atrial fibrillation following ventricular defibrillation with transvenous lead systems in man. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1992; 411–417.
[36] Birgersdotter-Green U., Rosenqvist M., Lindemans F., Rydén L., Rĺdegran K. Holter documented sudden death in a patient with an implanted defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1992; 15: 1008–1014.[CrossRef][Medline]
[37] Neuzner J., Pitschner H.F., Schlepper M. Programmable detection enhancements in implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995; 18: 539–547.[CrossRef][Medline]
[38] Unterberg C., Stevens J., Vollmann D., Hasenfuss G., Buchwald A.B. Long term clinical experience with the EGM width detection criterion for differentiation of supraventricular and ventricular tachycardia in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23: 1611–1617.[CrossRef][Medline]
[39] Brugada J. Is inappropriate therapy a resolved issue with current implantable cardioverter defibrillators? Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 40D–44D.[Web of Science][Medline]
[40] Roelke M., Garan H., McGovern B.A., Ruskin J. Analysis of the initiation of spontaneous ventricular tachycardia by stored electrograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 23: 117–122.[Abstract]
[41] Dijkman B. and Wellens H.J. Importance of the atrial channel for ventricular arrhythmia therapy in the dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2000; 11: 1309–1319.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[42] Stein K.M., Euler D.E., Mehra R., et al. Jewel AF Worldwide Investigators. Do atrial tachyarrhythmias beget ventricular tachyarrhythmias in defibrillator recipients? J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 335–340.
[43] Dries D.L., Exner D.V., Gersh B.J., Domanski M.J., Waclawiw M.A., Stevenson L.W. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk for mortality and heart failure progression in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis of the SOLVD trials. Studies of left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 695–703.
[44] Wellens H.J.J., Lau C.P., Lüderitz B., Akhart M., Waldo A.L., Camm A.J., et al. Atrioverter: an implantable device for treatment of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 1998; 98: 1651–1656.
[45] Schoels W., Swerdlow C.D., Jung W., Stein K.M., Seidl K., Haffajee C.J. The Worldwide Jewel AF Investigators. Worldwide clinical experience with a new dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator system. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001; 12: 521–528.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[46] Ricci R., Pignalberi C., Disertori M., et al. Efficacy of a dual chamber defibrillator with atrial antitachycardia functions in treating spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 1471.
[47] Josephson M.E. New approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation: the role of the atrial defibrillator. Circulation 1998; 98: 1594–1596.
[48] Adler S.W., Wolpert C., Warman E.N., Musley S.K., Koehler J.L., Euler D.E. for the Worldwide Jewel AF Investigators. Efficacy of pacing therapies for treating atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with ventricular arrhythmias receiving a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Circulation 2001; 104: 887–892.
[49] Shenasa H. and Shenasa M. Conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharges: incidence and implications. Eur Heart J 1996; 17:Abstr Suppl 479.
[50] Kosar E. and Nademance K. Complications in the implantation of dual chamber ICD. Cardiac Electrophysiol Rev 2001; 5: 108–109.
[51] Kühlkamp V., Dörnberger V., Mewis C., Suchalla R., Bosch R., Seipel L. Clinical experience with the new detection algorithms for atrial fibrillation of a defibrillator with dual chamber sensing and pacing. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1999; 10: 905–915.[Web of Science][Medline]
[52] Swerdlow C.D., Schsls W., Dijkman B., Jung W., Sheth N.V., Olson W.H., et al. for the Worldwide Jewel AF Investigators. Detection of atrial fibrillation and flutter by a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Circulation 2000; 101: 878–885.
[53] Rahlfs V. and Zimmermann H. H scores: ordinal data with few categories—how should they be analyzed? Drug Information J 1993; 27: 1227–1240.
[54] Moss A.J., Zareba W., Hall W.J., et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 877–883.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Z. Vardanyan and B. Kanna Data analysis and interpretation of results in DATAS trial Europace, October 1, 2008; 10(10): 1243 - 1243. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Cobo, A. Quesada, F. Arribas, and J. Almendral Data analysis and interpretation of results in DATAS trial: reply Europace, October 1, 2008; 10(10): 1243 - 1244. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Almendral, F. Arribas, C. Wolpert, R. Ricci, P. Adragao, E. Cobo, X. Navarro, A. Quesada, and the DATAS Steering Committee and Writing Committee Dual-chamber defibrillators reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with single-chamber devices: results from the DATAS (Dual chamber and Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse events Study) trial Europace, May 1, 2008; 10(5): 528 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||