The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT)

Design of a randomized trial comparing competitive rhythm discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Ronald D Berger, Darin R. LeRew, Joseph M. Smith, Chris Pulling, Michael R. Gold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rhythm ID Going Head to Head. Background: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become primary therapy for the prevention of sudden death. One of the major morbidities of ICD use remains inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). Detection enhancements have increased therapy specificity, but their impact on inappropriate therapy is not well studied. Moreover, ICD manufacturers have developed unique algorithms to meet this goal, with no previous clinical direct comparisons. RIGHT is a randomized, prospective study that will assess the differential efficacy of ICDs from two different manufacturers. It is the first trial to compare directly competitive ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms on a large scale. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess arrhythmia discrimination in Guidant versus Medtronic ICDs by comparing the time to first inappropriate therapy after the predischarge visit. Methods: The study will enroll approximately 2,000 patients in 100 centers. Patients will be randomized to Guidant or Medtronic using a permuted block design, stratified by center and by single/dual chamber device types. Patients will receive a commercially available Guidant VITALITY ® 2 family ICD with Rhythm ID™ or a Medtronic ICD using the Enhanced PR Logic™ or Wavelet™ discrimination algorithms, and will be followed according to the schedule shown until a common closing date with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All events will be reviewed by an independent committee to determine the appropriateness of rhythm classification and therapy delivery. Conclusion: RIGHT is the first randomized, large scale, head-to-head comparison of ICD discrimination algorithms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)749-753
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Volume17
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2006

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Therapeutics
Primary Prevention
Sudden Death
Appointments and Schedules
Prospective Studies
Morbidity
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Arrhythmia
  • Electrophysiology
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Inappropriate therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology

Cite this

The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT) : Design of a randomized trial comparing competitive rhythm discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators. / Berger, Ronald D; LeRew, Darin R.; Smith, Joseph M.; Pulling, Chris; Gold, Michael R.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, Vol. 17, No. 7, 07.2006, p. 749-753.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4cb78b258a30430f8bce383f91fd9b47,
title = "The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT): Design of a randomized trial comparing competitive rhythm discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators",
abstract = "Rhythm ID Going Head to Head. Background: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become primary therapy for the prevention of sudden death. One of the major morbidities of ICD use remains inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). Detection enhancements have increased therapy specificity, but their impact on inappropriate therapy is not well studied. Moreover, ICD manufacturers have developed unique algorithms to meet this goal, with no previous clinical direct comparisons. RIGHT is a randomized, prospective study that will assess the differential efficacy of ICDs from two different manufacturers. It is the first trial to compare directly competitive ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms on a large scale. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess arrhythmia discrimination in Guidant versus Medtronic ICDs by comparing the time to first inappropriate therapy after the predischarge visit. Methods: The study will enroll approximately 2,000 patients in 100 centers. Patients will be randomized to Guidant or Medtronic using a permuted block design, stratified by center and by single/dual chamber device types. Patients will receive a commercially available Guidant VITALITY {\circledR} 2 family ICD with Rhythm ID™ or a Medtronic ICD using the Enhanced PR Logic™ or Wavelet™ discrimination algorithms, and will be followed according to the schedule shown until a common closing date with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All events will be reviewed by an independent committee to determine the appropriateness of rhythm classification and therapy delivery. Conclusion: RIGHT is the first randomized, large scale, head-to-head comparison of ICD discrimination algorithms.",
keywords = "Arrhythmia, Electrophysiology, Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Inappropriate therapy",
author = "Berger, {Ronald D} and LeRew, {Darin R.} and Smith, {Joseph M.} and Chris Pulling and Gold, {Michael R.}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00463.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "749--753",
journal = "Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology",
issn = "1045-3873",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Rhythm ID Going Head to Head Trial (RIGHT)

T2 - Design of a randomized trial comparing competitive rhythm discrimination algorithms in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AU - Berger, Ronald D

AU - LeRew, Darin R.

AU - Smith, Joseph M.

AU - Pulling, Chris

AU - Gold, Michael R.

PY - 2006/7

Y1 - 2006/7

N2 - Rhythm ID Going Head to Head. Background: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become primary therapy for the prevention of sudden death. One of the major morbidities of ICD use remains inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). Detection enhancements have increased therapy specificity, but their impact on inappropriate therapy is not well studied. Moreover, ICD manufacturers have developed unique algorithms to meet this goal, with no previous clinical direct comparisons. RIGHT is a randomized, prospective study that will assess the differential efficacy of ICDs from two different manufacturers. It is the first trial to compare directly competitive ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms on a large scale. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess arrhythmia discrimination in Guidant versus Medtronic ICDs by comparing the time to first inappropriate therapy after the predischarge visit. Methods: The study will enroll approximately 2,000 patients in 100 centers. Patients will be randomized to Guidant or Medtronic using a permuted block design, stratified by center and by single/dual chamber device types. Patients will receive a commercially available Guidant VITALITY ® 2 family ICD with Rhythm ID™ or a Medtronic ICD using the Enhanced PR Logic™ or Wavelet™ discrimination algorithms, and will be followed according to the schedule shown until a common closing date with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All events will be reviewed by an independent committee to determine the appropriateness of rhythm classification and therapy delivery. Conclusion: RIGHT is the first randomized, large scale, head-to-head comparison of ICD discrimination algorithms.

AB - Rhythm ID Going Head to Head. Background: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become primary therapy for the prevention of sudden death. One of the major morbidities of ICD use remains inappropriate therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). Detection enhancements have increased therapy specificity, but their impact on inappropriate therapy is not well studied. Moreover, ICD manufacturers have developed unique algorithms to meet this goal, with no previous clinical direct comparisons. RIGHT is a randomized, prospective study that will assess the differential efficacy of ICDs from two different manufacturers. It is the first trial to compare directly competitive ICD rhythm discrimination algorithms on a large scale. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to assess arrhythmia discrimination in Guidant versus Medtronic ICDs by comparing the time to first inappropriate therapy after the predischarge visit. Methods: The study will enroll approximately 2,000 patients in 100 centers. Patients will be randomized to Guidant or Medtronic using a permuted block design, stratified by center and by single/dual chamber device types. Patients will receive a commercially available Guidant VITALITY ® 2 family ICD with Rhythm ID™ or a Medtronic ICD using the Enhanced PR Logic™ or Wavelet™ discrimination algorithms, and will be followed according to the schedule shown until a common closing date with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All events will be reviewed by an independent committee to determine the appropriateness of rhythm classification and therapy delivery. Conclusion: RIGHT is the first randomized, large scale, head-to-head comparison of ICD discrimination algorithms.

KW - Arrhythmia

KW - Electrophysiology

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - Inappropriate therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745187996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745187996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00463.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00463.x

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 749

EP - 753

JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

SN - 1045-3873

IS - 7

ER -