Ventricular fibrillation sensing and detection by implantable defibrillators: Is one better than the others? A prospective, comparative study

Introduction: We prospectively compared the performance of the sensing and detection systems of three leading defibrillator manufacturers: Medtronic, Guidant, and Ventritex, Methods and Results: Ventricular fibrillation signal was digitally recorded during defibrillator implantation and subsequently played back sequentiall y to a Medtronic Micro Jewel II 7223Cx, a Guidant MINI II 1762, and a Ventr itex Cadet V-115C, The devices were programmed for single-zone detection, a t nominal settings. Rate cutoff was set at 320 msec (185/min for the MINI). We analyzed 253 episodes from 47 patients. Median undersensing was 0%, 2.1 %, and 5.3% for the jewel, MINI, and Cadet, respectively (P < 0.001 for eac h paired comparison), Detection time was 4.1 +/- 1.6 seconds, 3.4 +/- 1.6 s econds, and 4.3 +/- 2.2 seconds for the Jewel, MINI, and Cadet, respectivel y (P < 0.001 between MINI-Jewel and MINI-Cadet; P < 0.01 between Jewel-Cade t). Delayed detection (detection time longer than the mean of all observati ons + 2 SD) occurred in 3 (1.2%), 7 (2.8%), and 18 (7.1%) episodes for the Jewel, MINI, and Cadet, respectively. Performance for all devices was worse when the short-separation integrated bipolar lead was used and when the ep isode followed a failed high-energy shock. Conclusion: Statistically significant differences were seen in sensing and detection performance among the devices and device/lead combinations during ventricular fibrillation, These differences are related to specific featur es of the respective devices and should be taken into account during clinic al practice, as well as in future device development.