Pacemaker and ICD Programming Adherence With Evidence‐Based Recommendations.

Introduction: Despite data‐driven 2015 expert consensus statement (consensus) guidelines on recommended PPM and ICD parameters, patients often fall short of optimal device programing. The purpose of this retrospective, observational, single‐center study is to review device implant registry data both...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Vol. 37; no. 2; pp. 424 - 429
Autores principales: Smith, Alexander, Ortman, Matthew, Andriulli, John, Russo, Andrea M.
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=191491753&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 191491753
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10453873
        GSB
      jtl: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
      issn: 10453873
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2026
      vid: 37
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        191491753
        190742452
        191491753
        191491753
        10.1111/jce.70242
        191491753
      ppf: 424
      ppct: 5
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Pacemaker and ICD Programming Adherence With Evidence‐Based Recommendations.
      aug:
        au:
          Smith, Alexander
          Ortman, Matthew
          Andriulli, John
          Russo, Andrea M.
        affil: Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden New Jersey, , USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Pacemaker, Artificial
          Defibrillators, Implantable
          Calibration Methods
          Medical Practice, Evidence-Based Evaluation
          Guideline Adherence Evaluation
          Human
          Retrospective Design
          Record Review
          Nonexperimental Studies
          Consensus
          Bradycardia Therapy
          Tachycardia Therapy
          Descriptive Statistics
      ab: Introduction: Despite data‐driven 2015 expert consensus statement (consensus) guidelines on recommended PPM and ICD parameters, patients often fall short of optimal device programing. The purpose of this retrospective, observational, single‐center study is to review device implant registry data both before and after the consensus update to determine whether there is an improvement in adherence to consensus‐recommended device programming over time. Methods: McKesson software was used to identify all patients pre‐ (1/1/2012–12/31/2013) and post‐ (1/1/2020–12/31/2022) consensus who underwent a single, dual, or BiV device implant and had at least one follow‐up appointment in the electronic medical record. Groups were evaluated for adherence to consensus recommendations based on the type of device. BiV devices were evaluated based on the percent of total pacing, with > 98% pacing being considered compliant with the consensus. Single and dual‐chamber ICDs were evaluated based on bradycardia and tachyarrhythmia programming parameters as outlined in the 2015 consensus document and the 2019 manufacturer‐specific update. Due to significant implantation rates at our institution, and to maintain consistency, only Medtronic devices were evaluated in this study. Results: In the BiV group, before the consensus, 41 (85.4%) patients were > 98% paced, compared with only 69 (58.0%) patients post‐consensus. Forty‐five (93.7%) patients were at least 90% paced in the pre‐consensus group, compared with 109 (91.6%) in the post‐consensus group. In the ICD group, bradycardia‐pacing settings were similar in both groups (34/89.5% vs. 73/90.1%, p = 0.91). There was a trend toward improved adherence to tachyarrhythmia therapies post‐consensus (15/39.5% vs. 37/45.7%, p = 0.52). Nonadherence was driven by 1:1 SVT logic initiation. If this parameter was excluded, both groups increased significantly (37/97.4% vs. 78/96.3%, p = 0.76). Conclusions: This study adds to the growing body of literature showing a persistent disconnect between data‐driven recommendations and real‐world clinical practice. Larger studies are needed to better understand physician barriers to these guideline‐driven recommendations.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N