A comparison of empiric to physician-tailored programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the prospective randomized multicenter EMPIRIC trial
A comparison of empiric to physician-tailored programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the prospective randomized multicenter EMPIRIC trial
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to determine whether a strategically chosen standardized set of programmable settings is at least as effective as physician-tailored choices, as measured by the shock-related morbidity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. BACKGROUND: Programming of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or ventricular fibrillation [VF]) detection and therapy for ICDs is complex, requires many choices by highly trained physicians, and directly influences the frequency of shocks and patient morbidity. METHODS: A total of 900 ICD patients were randomly assigned to standardized (EMPIRIC, n = 445) or physician-tailored (TAILORED, n = 455) VT/VF programming and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: The primary end point was met: the adjusted percentages of both VT/VF (22.3% vs. 28.7%) and supraventricular tachycardia or other non-VT/VF event episodes (11.9% vs. 26.1%) that resulted in a shock were non-inferior and lower in the EMPIRIC arm compared to the TAILORED arm. The time to first all-cause shock was non-inferior in the EMPIRIC arm (hazard ratio = 0.95, 90% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.23, non-inferiority p = 0.0016). The EMPIRIC trial had a significant reduction of patients with 5 or more shocks for all-cause (3.8% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.039) and true VT/VF (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in total mortality, syncope, emergency room visits, or unscheduled outpatient visits. Unscheduled hospitalizations occurred significantly less often (p = 0.001) in the EMPIRIC arm. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized empiric ICD programming for VT/VF settings is at least as effective as patient-specific, physician-tailored programming, as measured by many clinical outcomes. Simplified and pre-specified ICD programming is possible without an increase in shock-related morbidity.
330-339
Wilkoff, Bruce L.
a9a732cc-c011-4f0f-8f75-c7b8ff031fe1
Ousdigian, Kevin T.
31dc3f86-c767-4641-9778-144d88898e47
Sterns, Laurence D.
69d5b81b-d683-41f5-8420-6c93a1ab553f
Wang, Zengri J.
cee8c5a2-78c2-4ee2-bed6-61c455d6f018
Wilson, Ryan D.
abfb42fa-372c-460f-a89d-96595c3a5d13
Morgan, John M.
ac98099e-241d-4551-bc98-709f6dfc8680
EMPIRIC Trial Investigators, None
2aa99497-f9fd-494a-9c78-33135a2dc87b
18 July 2006
Wilkoff, Bruce L.
a9a732cc-c011-4f0f-8f75-c7b8ff031fe1
Ousdigian, Kevin T.
31dc3f86-c767-4641-9778-144d88898e47
Sterns, Laurence D.
69d5b81b-d683-41f5-8420-6c93a1ab553f
Wang, Zengri J.
cee8c5a2-78c2-4ee2-bed6-61c455d6f018
Wilson, Ryan D.
abfb42fa-372c-460f-a89d-96595c3a5d13
Morgan, John M.
ac98099e-241d-4551-bc98-709f6dfc8680
EMPIRIC Trial Investigators, None
2aa99497-f9fd-494a-9c78-33135a2dc87b
Wilkoff, Bruce L., Ousdigian, Kevin T., Sterns, Laurence D., Wang, Zengri J., Wilson, Ryan D., Morgan, John M. and EMPIRIC Trial Investigators, None
(2006)
A comparison of empiric to physician-tailored programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the prospective randomized multicenter EMPIRIC trial.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 48 (2), .
(doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.037).
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to determine whether a strategically chosen standardized set of programmable settings is at least as effective as physician-tailored choices, as measured by the shock-related morbidity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. BACKGROUND: Programming of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or ventricular fibrillation [VF]) detection and therapy for ICDs is complex, requires many choices by highly trained physicians, and directly influences the frequency of shocks and patient morbidity. METHODS: A total of 900 ICD patients were randomly assigned to standardized (EMPIRIC, n = 445) or physician-tailored (TAILORED, n = 455) VT/VF programming and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: The primary end point was met: the adjusted percentages of both VT/VF (22.3% vs. 28.7%) and supraventricular tachycardia or other non-VT/VF event episodes (11.9% vs. 26.1%) that resulted in a shock were non-inferior and lower in the EMPIRIC arm compared to the TAILORED arm. The time to first all-cause shock was non-inferior in the EMPIRIC arm (hazard ratio = 0.95, 90% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.23, non-inferiority p = 0.0016). The EMPIRIC trial had a significant reduction of patients with 5 or more shocks for all-cause (3.8% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.039) and true VT/VF (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in total mortality, syncope, emergency room visits, or unscheduled outpatient visits. Unscheduled hospitalizations occurred significantly less often (p = 0.001) in the EMPIRIC arm. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized empiric ICD programming for VT/VF settings is at least as effective as patient-specific, physician-tailored programming, as measured by many clinical outcomes. Simplified and pre-specified ICD programming is possible without an increase in shock-related morbidity.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 18 July 2006
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 61609
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61609
ISSN: 0735-1097
PURE UUID: 603bd109-60e6-40ec-9c36-355a0910fafd
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 06 Oct 2008
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 11:27
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Bruce L. Wilkoff
Author:
Kevin T. Ousdigian
Author:
Laurence D. Sterns
Author:
Zengri J. Wang
Author:
Ryan D. Wilson
Author:
John M. Morgan
Author:
None EMPIRIC Trial Investigators
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
Loading...
View more statistics