Europace Advance Access originally published online on September 26, 2007
Europace 2007 9(11):1041-1047; doi:10.1093/europace/eum195
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICDS
Ventricular oversensing in 518 patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: incidence, complications, and solutions
Medical Clinic II, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, University of Technology Dresden, Fetscherstr. 76, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Manuscript submitted 29 May 2007. Accepted after revision 13 August 2007.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 351 4501700; fax: +49 351 4501702.E-mail address: post{at}thomas-rauwolf.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
The present study evaluates the incidence of various complications in implanted cardiac defibrillators (ICD) therapy due to ventricular oversensing (VO) and its complications. From June 1998 to May 2005, we retrospectively screened 518 patients (1085.6 patient years) for the occurrence of VO episodes (441 male, 77 female). The overall incidence was 7.3% (n = 38) with inappropriate shock deliveries accounting for 2.3% (n = 12). All VO episodes were caused by either T-wave oversensing (n = 10), myopotentials (n = 8), electrode failure (n = 5), interference with electromagnetic fields (n = 3), double-counting (n = 4), pacemaker interactions (n = 2), or others (n = 2). There were five life-threatening events due to inappropriate ICD reaction. In eight (22%) cases, ICD reprogramming was able to avoid further oversensing episodes (e.g. adaptation of sensitivity, T-wave suppression feature), 13 (35%) patients had to undergo invasive procedures (e.g. electrode replacing) to suppress VO, 16 (43%) were told to avoid the trigger situation, and one demanded to deactivate all ICD therapies because of inappropriate shock delivery. Our data demonstrate that VO is a rare complication, but might lead to life-threatening events. In most cases, VO episodes could be prevented by appropriate ICD reprogramming or avoidance of the initiating trigger.
Key Words: Ventricular oversensing, ICD, Complication
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
In recent years, various multicenter, prospective studies have shown a benefit in survival after implanted cardiac defibrillators (ICD) implantation in patients with impaired left ventricular function1
–4 or other cardiac diseases, such as Brugadás syndrome, long QT syndrome, or arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD).5,6 However, accurate and effective ICD function depends on correct sensing of intracardiac electrical activity and their appropriate interpretation by individual decision algorithms.7 Oversensing is a well-known phenomenon potentially leading to ICD malfunctioning by interfering with intracardiac signals and usually is related to myopotentials, T-waves, electrical spikes of an additionally implanted pacemaker or other technical devices (i.e. microwaves, stimulation therapy in physiotherapy, and electric coagulation8–11). The ICD system often misinterprets these cardiac/non-cardiac potentials as a malignant arrhythmia and delivers inappropriate shock therapy, which in many patients is an extremely uncomfortable event and greatly affecting quality of life. In some cases, inappropriate therapy delivery is described as potentially life threatening,12 especially when the shock falls in the vulnerable phase of QRS complex, triggering ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a large cohort of 518 ICD patients the incidence and various types of ventricular oversensing (VO), the occurrence of inappropriate shock deliveries as well as the frequency of complications requiring invasive procedures to solve VO during a long-term follow-up.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
Patient population
All 518 consecutive patients, who received an ICD implantation in our clinic between June 1998 and May 2005, were included. The individual ICD devices (including all ICD exchanges, e.g. because of low battery status) were provided by Biotronik (Berlin, Germany; n = 113), ELA (Cedex, France; n = 2), St Jude Medical (St. Paul, USA; n = 2), Guidant/CPI (St. Paul, USA; n = 524), and Medtronic (Minneapolis, USA; n = 160). Regular follow-up visits were usually scheduled in 3 months intervals in our outpatient clinic. During each device interrogation, all important parameters of ICD were checked (e.g. battery status, lead and shock impedance, pacing thresholds, and atrial and ventricular sensing) as well as the ICD memory function screened for potential episodes of VO. Cardiological examination (echocardiography and stress tests) was performed every 12 months based on the clinical judgement of the physician. Oversensing provocation manoeuvres or X-ray examination were performed, if an electrode lead failure (changes in impedance and unclear stored EGM) was assumed. Altogether 1085.6 patient-years were documented and the VO problems were categorized to the origin of noise signal, including T-wave oversensing, myopotentials, electrode failure, interference with electromagnetic fields, double-counting of broad QRS complexes, pacemaker interactions, and others.
Statistical analysis
All data and statistics are reported as mean ± standard deviation (n± SD) for continuous normally distributed data or as median (25–75%) for not normally distributed variables, respectively. Categorical variables are shown as number (%). P-values below 0.05 were considered significant.
Patients' characteristics
Five hundred and eighteen consecutive patients (i.e. 1085.6 patient-years) with an ICD implantation were studied retrospectively in respect of the occurrence of VO episodes and the incidence of inappropriate therapy deliveries. The median of follow-up was 1.64 years per patient (25–75%: 0.52–3.39 years). As shown in Table 1, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31.9 ± 11.2% at the time of implantation, 312 (60.2%) patients had ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 163 (31.5%) suffered from non-ischaemic (dilatative) cardiomyopathy, and 43 (8.3%) had other forms of heart disease (i.e. ARVD, long QT syndrome).
|
Episodes of VO were documented in 38 (7.3%) patients during follow-up, whereas 12 (2.3%) patients suffered from inappropriate anti-tachycardic ICD therapy, 37 times recorded as inappropriate shock deliveries and two times as inappropriate ATP (Table 2). There were five episodes of potentially life-threatening conditions due to VO, i.e. one patient received an inappropriate ICD shock while swimming through an electrically opening pool door. No documented ICD malfunctions due to VO resulted in fatal outcome. However, we have to confirm that no final read out of ICD memory was taken in 96 cases post-mortem.
|
The underlying mechanisms of VO episodes were characterized as demonstrated in Table 3.
|
T-wave oversensing
The most frequent oversensing mechanism was observed as T-wave oversensing in 10 patients.13
,14 This type of VO is caused by sensing T-waves as additionally QRS complexes. So ICD’s count ventricular frequency inadequately high and an inappropriate shock delivery is possible.15–17 Three inappropriate shocks and one ATP were delivered in observed periods. In three patients (30%) of the present study group, a T-wave suppression feature was effective to avoid oversensing. In three patients (30%), a replacement of pace/sense electrode was required. Figure 1 shows a typical example for T-wave oversensing.
|
Oversensing caused by myopotentials
In the present study, eight (1.5%) patients were noticed with VO due to myopotentials.8
,18 This type of VO in ICD therapy is a rare complication caused by the exclusively used bipolar leads.19–22 All registered episodes were related to contraction of the respiratory, trunk, or upper arm musculature. Whereas in three patients, the implantation of a new pace/sense lead was necessary, reprogramming of the ICD with changing the ventricular sensitivity value was sufficient to avoid further oversensing episodes. All other cases only showed short episodes without therapeutical consequence. Figure 2A shows IEGM in a case of myopotential oversensing.
|
Oversensing caused by lead failure/lead fracture and insulation defect
Five patients suffered from VO due to electrode failure and consecutive noise sensing with inadequate therapy delivery.23
–25 In all patients, an electrode replacement was required. Lead failure or fracture can imitate all other types of oversensing. An essential role in preventing complications caused by electrode failure is to register impedance of the lead exactly. All cases of unexpected changes in lead impedance require precise physical examination, provocation manoeuvres, and chest X-ray examination as standard diagnostic procedures.
Oversensing caused by double-counting
Double-counting was recorded in four patients, leading to eight inadequate shocks in two patients and short episodes without therapy delivery in the others. In our study group, we found two underlying mechanisms of this VO type. In one patient with an older biventricular system, the ventricular channel of the left and right ventricular leads was connected by a Y-adapter to the device, the ventricular potential was sensed twice because of the underlying intraventricular conduction delay. In the other three patients, double-counting was due to a broad QRS complex. In these cases, the ICD detects one QRS complex twice and misinterprets a normal sinus rhythm or a slow VT as malignant tachyarrhythmia. Figure 3 shows a double-count mechanism in a patient with a running, haemodynamically tolerated slow VT (CL 590 ms). In this patient, a replacement of pace/sense lead was performed.
|
Oversensing caused by alternating current application and electromagnetic fields
Three patients experienced VO according to electromagnetic field interference with the ICD device by inducing an alternating current in the sensing electrode or to alternating current, respectively. In one patient, microwave energy was applied for pain relief at the skin close to the ICD pocket. The signals from electromagnetic field transmitter were detected from the atrial and ventricular channel of the ICD, misinterpreted as VF inducing an inappropriate shock delivery (Figure 2B). The second patient had VO while swimming through an electrically opening pool door. In another case, the inadequate shock was due to an alternating current application during physiotherapy session using electric stimulation of the skin (Figure 2C).
Interactions between pacemaker and implanted cardiac defibrillators
Six patients had an ICD and an additionally implanted pacemaker. There are different reasons for these double device implantations:
- first generation of ICD’s with large volume were implanted abdominally;
- first generation ICD’s were only available as single-chamber devices;
- pre-existing biventricular pacemaker for CHF therapy;
- insurance requirements.26,27
In the present study, two of six (33.3%) patients were noticed with episodes of such interaction. One patient suffered from a life-threatening condition due to an interaction of the ICD and the pacemaker, resulting in haemodynamically not tolerated bradycardia for some seconds resulting in a circulatory collapse and unconsciousness (Figure 4). Initially, the pacemaker (ELA, Talent DR, DDD 55–130) showed a typical ventricular undersensing while an incessant slow VT (CL 480 ms). Caused by inappropriate ventricular stimulation, slow VT was accelerated to polymorphic VT/VF. This resulted in an adequate and effective shock delivery. However, after shock delivery, the pacemaker was ineffective in stimulation (exit block) and simultaneously the ICD interpreted pacemaker spikes as normal QRS complexes—so the pacemaker function the ICD (VVI 30) was inadequately inhibited. A haemodynamically not tolerated bradycardia with slow ventricular rhythm was the consequence.
|
Another patient received inappropriate shock delivery while interrogation (Figure 5). A magnet test activated the ‘DOO 85’-Modus of the additionally implanted pacemaker system (Medtronic Thera DR, DDD 30–110) with unipolar atrial lead and bipolar ventricular lead.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
The present study was performed to analyse in a large cohort of 518 ICD patients the incidence and different mechanisms of VO during a long-term follow-up (1085.6 patient-years), including complications such as inappropriate shock deliveries as well as necessary invasive procedures to solve the underlying problem.
According to various multicenter, prospective studies showing a benefit in survival for patients with severe impaired left ventricular function, ICD implantation currently is recommended in different cardiac diseases as an effective, efficient, and save treatment option.4,5,28 Nevertheless, ICD therapy might be associated with technical/signalling faults beyond the well-known peri-interventional complications at the implantation site such as haematoma, bleeding, or infection.29 The 7.3% incidence of VO in our patient cohort is comparable with previously published data in smaller and selected patient groups.11,30 Only few patients (2.3%) needed an electrode replacement to solve the oversensing problem. In most of the cases, VO episodes could be avoided by reprogramming the ICD (e.g. T-wave suppression function), changing the ventricular sensitivity value, or by the renewed instruction the patient to omit potential ICD interference sources, i.e. electromagnetic fields. Despite the risk for potentially life-threatening conditions due to VO, no documented ICD malfunctioning resulted in fatal outcome.
However, 96 patients died in study interval had no read out of ICD memory post-mortem. Therefore, no reliable information about fatal complications potentially depending on inappropriate ICD therapy is available. Fatal complications due to inappropriate ICD therapy are described in some case reports13,15,31 but usually are seldom.
Lead failure is another mechanism described in the literature, which may cause fatal complications.23,32 A life-threatening situation caused by lead failure was not noticed. Ellenbogen et al.25 recently reported that special attention should be applied to older lead types. Unexpected changes in impedance, threshold, or unexpected noise sensing may precede complications. Advanced monitoring with provocation manoeuvres and chest X-ray are standard control procedures in all suspect cases.
Special attention is required in ICD patients with additionally implanted pacemaker systems. These devices can interfere significantly. Today, the combination of ICD and additionally implanted pacemaker is rare because all current ICD devices can be implanted subclavicular and obtain all pacemaker functions. Only a few patients with older abdominal implanted ICD devices or additionally implanted pacemakers are affected by device interactions. We confirm the results of the study group of Calkins et al.33 that interference of ICD and pacemaker is common and could be avoided in many cases by careful programming. However, in current guidelines for ICD and pacemaker implantation and follow-up, there is no information how to handle this special patient group in this double device situation.34 In such situations, the authors recommend to a careful assessment for an explantation of the pacemaker, when a sufficient ICD device is present.
Study limitations
The present study was retrospective in design and monocentric. However, all data and ICD memory episodes were evaluated by two independent cardiologists experienced in pacemaker and ICD interrogation.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
In summary, VO is a rare cause of ICD malfunction and cannot be attributed as a specific problem to any of the manufacturer of ICD devices used. In most cases, oversensing does not result in severe complications and usually is resolved by non-invasive manoeuvres. Special attention has to be applied to patients with older types of leads and/or additionally implanted pacemaker. A sufficient instruction about behavioural patterns should be given to all ICD patients, to avoid oversensing episodes.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
|
Funding |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
No financial support was received for the present study.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Both authors contributed equally. 
|
Reference |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsDiscussionConclusionsFundingReference |
|---|
[1] Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med (2002) 346:877–83.
[2] Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med (2005) 352:225–37.
[3] Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De MT, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med (2004) 350:2140–50.
[4] A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. N Engl J Med (1997) 337:1576–83.
[5] Priori SG, Aliot E, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Bossaert L, Breithardt G, Brugada P, et al. Task Force on Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J (2001) 22:1374–450.
[6] Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, Freedman RA, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, 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) 106:2145–61.
[7] DeCaprio V, Hurzeler P, Furman S. A comparison of unipolar and bipolar electrograms for cardiac pacemaker sensing. Circulation (1977) 56:750–5.
[8] Secemsky SI, Hauser RG, Denes P, Edwards LM. Unipolar sensing abnormalities: incidence and clinical significance of skeletal muscle interference and undersensing in 228 patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1982) 5:10–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
[9] Schulte B, Sperzel J, Carlsson J, Dursch M, Erdogan A, Pitschner HF, et al. Inappropriate arrhythmia detection in implantable defibrillator therapy due to oversensing of diaphragmatic myopotentials. J Interv Card Electrophysiol (2001) 5:487–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[10] Lin D, Dixit S, Russo AM, Hsia HH. Total failure to sense ventricular fibrillation with inappropriate defibrillator sensitivity adjustment. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2004) 27:1321–3.[CrossRef][Medline]
[11] Weretka S, Michaelsen J, Becker R, Karle CA, Voss F, Hilbel T, et al. Ventricular oversensing: a study of 101 patients implanted with dual chamber defibrillators and two different lead systems. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2003) 26:65–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
[12] Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eranen HJ, Kettunen RV, Hartikainen JE. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1999) 22:711–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
[13] Porres JM, Brugada J, Marco P, Garcia F, Azcarate B. T wave oversensing by a cardioverter defibrillator implanted in a patient with the Brugada syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2004) 27:1563–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
[14] Korte T, Koditz H, Niehaus M, Paul T, Tebbenjohanns J. High incidence of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies in children and adolescents with implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2004) 27:924–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
[15] Hsu SS, Mohib S, Schroeder A, Deger FT. T wave oversensing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol (2004) 11:67–72.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[16] Washizuka T, Chinushi M, Tagawa M, Kasai H, Watanabe H, Hosaka Y, et al. Inappropriate discharges by fourth generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with ventricular arrhythmias. Jpn Circ J (2001) 65:927–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
[17] Duru F, Bauersfeld U, Candinas R. Avoiding inappropriate ventricular tachycardia detection due to T-wave oversensing in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a novel application of the electrogram width criterion. Europace (2001) 3:80–4.
[18] Wiegand UK, Bode F, Bonnemeier H, Tolg R, Peters W, Katus HA. Incidence and predictors of pacemaker dysfunction with unipolar ventricular lead configuration. Can we identify patients who benefit from bipolar electrodes? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2001) 24:1383–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
[19] Sandler MJ, Kutalek SP. Inappropriate discharge by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: recognition of myopotential sensing using telemetered intracardiac electrograms. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1994) 17:665–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
[20] Deshmukh P, Anderson K. Myopotential sensing by a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator: two case reports. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (1998) 9:767–72.[Web of Science][Medline]
[21] Mann DE, Otto L, Kelly PA, Reiter MJ. Effect of sensing system on the incidence of myopotential oversensing during bradycardia pacing in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Am J Cardiol (2000) 85:1380–2.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[22] Grimm W, Menz V, Hoffmann J, Timmann U, Funck R, Moosdorf R, et al. Complications of third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1999) 22:206–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
[23] Dorwarth U, Frey B, Dugas M, Matis T, Fiek M, Schmoeckel M, et al. Transvenous defibrillation leads: high incidence of failure during long-term follow-up. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2003) 14:38–43.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[24] Wollmann CG, Bocker D, Loher A, Kobe J, Scheld HH, Breithardt GE, et al. Incidence of complications in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillator who receive additional transvenous pace/sense leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2005) 28:795–800.[CrossRef][Medline]
[25] Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA, Shepard RK, Clemo HF, Vaughn T, Holloman K, et al. Detection and management of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure: incidence and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol (2003) 41:73–80.
[26] Shivkumar K, Feliciano Z, Boyle NG, Wiener I. Intradevice interaction in a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator preventing ventricular tachyarrhythmia detection. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2000) 11:1285–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[27] Geiger MJ, O’Neill P, Sharma A, Skadsen A, Zimerman L, Greenfield RA, et al. Interactions between transvenous nonthoracotomy cardioverter defibrillator systems and permanent transvenous endocardial pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1997) 20:624–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
[28] Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, Freedman RA, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, 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) 106:2145–61.
[29] Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eranen HJ, Kettunen RV, Hartikainen JE. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1999) 22:711–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
[30] Saeed M, Jin A, Pontone G, Higgins S, Gold M, Harari D, et al. Prevalence of sensing abnormalities in dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol (2003) 8:219–26.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[31] Messali A, Thomas O, Chauvin M, Coumel P, Leenhardt A. Death due to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2004) 15:953–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
[32] Souques M. The influence of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on implantable cardiac medical devices. Presse Med (2004) 33:1611–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
[33] Calkins H, Brinker J, Veltri EP, Guarnieri T, Levine JH. Clinical interactions between pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol (1990) 16:666–73.[Abstract]
[34] Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, Freedman RA, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, 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) 106:2145–61.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. R. Santos, P. Adragao, D. Cavaco, F. B. Morgado, R. Candeias, S. Lima, and J. A. Silva Diaphragmatic myopotential oversensing in pacemaker-dependent patients with CRT-D devices Europace, December 1, 2008; 10(12): 1381 - 1386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Tzeis, G. Andrikopoulos, C. Kolb, and P. E. Vardas Tools and strategies for the reduction of inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks Europace, November 1, 2008; 10(11): 1256 - 1265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kowalski, K. A. Ellenbogen, M. A. Wood, and P. L. Friedman Implantable cardiac defibrillator lead failure or myopotential oversensing? An approach to the diagnosis of noise on lead electrograms Europace, August 1, 2008; 10(8): 914 - 917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Chinushi, Y. Hosaka, N. Ikarashi, K. Iijima, H. Furushima, and Y. Aizawa Automatic R-wave and impedance testing with the modern patient alert system to reduce inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks due to lead fracture Europace, June 1, 2008; 10(6): 738 - 740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. van Erven and M. J Schalij Troubleshooting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator related problems Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 649 - 660. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Burri Ventricular oversensing in 518 patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: incidence, complications, and solutions Europace, February 1, 2008; 10(2): 258 - 259. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. P. Rauwolf, M. Guenther, M. U. Braun, and R. H. Strasser Myopotential oversensing due to inversion of the DF-1 connectors: reply Europace, February 1, 2008; 10(2): 259 - 259. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||