• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a primary prevention indication with and without a reduced ejection fraction versus patients with a secondary prevention indication

LV. Boersma, CS. Barr, MC. Burke, AR. Leon, DA. Theuns, JM. Herre, R. Weiss, MS. Kremers, P. Neuzil, MP. Husby, N. Carter, TM. Stivland, MR. Gold, . ,

. 2017 ; 14 (3) : 367-375. [pub] 20161124

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18010915

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but has not been well studied in the most commonly treated transvenous ICD patient population, namely, primary prevention (PP) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The analyses in the present study were designed to compare clinical outcomes for PP patients with and without a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and secondary prevention (SP) patients implanted with the S-ICD. METHODS: All patients 18 years and older from the S-ICD IDE study and the EFFORTLESS Registry with available data as of November 18, 2013, were included (n = 856; mean follow-up duration 644 days). Outcomes were evaluated in 2 analyses: (1) comparing all PP patients (n = 603, 70.4%) with all SP patients (n = 253, 29.6%) and (2) comparing all PP patients with an EF ≤35% (n = 379) with those with an EF >35% (n = 149, 17.4%). RESULTS: No differences were observed in mortality, complications, inappropriate therapy, or ability to convert ventricular tachyarrhythmias between SP and PP patients. However, SP patients had a higher incidence of appropriate therapy than did PP patients (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .0004). In the PP subanalysis, the cohort with an EF ≤35% had significantly older patients with more comorbidities and higher mortality (3.0% annually vs 0.0%). Despite these differences, device-related complications, conversion efficacy, and incidence of inappropriate shock therapies were not significantly different between PP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD performs well in protecting patients with either PP or SP implant indications from sudden cardiac death. Within PP patients, device performance was independent of EF.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18010915
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20180404142409.0
007      
ta
008      
180404s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.11.025 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)27890798
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Boersma, Lucas V $u St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein/Associated Principal Investigator Cardiology at AMC Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.boersma@antoniusziekenhuis.nl.
245    10
$a Performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a primary prevention indication with and without a reduced ejection fraction versus patients with a secondary prevention indication / $c LV. Boersma, CS. Barr, MC. Burke, AR. Leon, DA. Theuns, JM. Herre, R. Weiss, MS. Kremers, P. Neuzil, MP. Husby, N. Carter, TM. Stivland, MR. Gold, . ,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) provides an alternative to the transvenous ICD for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but has not been well studied in the most commonly treated transvenous ICD patient population, namely, primary prevention (PP) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The analyses in the present study were designed to compare clinical outcomes for PP patients with and without a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and secondary prevention (SP) patients implanted with the S-ICD. METHODS: All patients 18 years and older from the S-ICD IDE study and the EFFORTLESS Registry with available data as of November 18, 2013, were included (n = 856; mean follow-up duration 644 days). Outcomes were evaluated in 2 analyses: (1) comparing all PP patients (n = 603, 70.4%) with all SP patients (n = 253, 29.6%) and (2) comparing all PP patients with an EF ≤35% (n = 379) with those with an EF >35% (n = 149, 17.4%). RESULTS: No differences were observed in mortality, complications, inappropriate therapy, or ability to convert ventricular tachyarrhythmias between SP and PP patients. However, SP patients had a higher incidence of appropriate therapy than did PP patients (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .0004). In the PP subanalysis, the cohort with an EF ≤35% had significantly older patients with more comorbidities and higher mortality (3.0% annually vs 0.0%). Despite these differences, device-related complications, conversion efficacy, and incidence of inappropriate shock therapies were not significantly different between PP subgroups. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD performs well in protecting patients with either PP or SP implant indications from sudden cardiac death. Within PP patients, device performance was independent of EF.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a náhlá srdeční smrt $x prevence a kontrola $7 D016757
650    12
$a defibrilátory implantabilní $7 D017147
650    12
$a elektrická defibrilace $x škodlivé účinky $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D004554
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a Kaplanův-Meierův odhad $7 D053208
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a výsledky a postupy - zhodnocení (zdravotní péče) $7 D010043
650    _2
$a primární prevence $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D011322
650    _2
$a protetické vybavení $7 D017755
650    _2
$a registrace $7 D012042
650    _2
$a sekundární prevence $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D055502
650    _2
$a tepový objem $7 D013318
650    12
$a komorová tachykardie $x mortalita $x terapie $7 D017180
650    12
$a dysfunkce levé srdeční komory $x diagnóza $x patofyziologie $7 D018487
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Barr, Craig S $u Russell Hall Hospital, Dudley, United Kingdom.
700    1_
$a Burke, Martin C $u Heart Rhythm Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
700    1_
$a Leon, Angel R $u Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia.
700    1_
$a Theuns, Dominic A $u Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Herre, John M $u Sentara Cardiovascular Research Institute, Norfolk, Virginia.
700    1_
$a Weiss, Raul $u Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
700    1_
$a Kremers, Mark S $u Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina.
700    1_
$a Neuzil, Petr $u Homolka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Husby, Michael P $u Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Carter, Nathan $u Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Stivland, Timothy M $u Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
700    1_
$a Gold, Michael R $u Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
700    1_
$a ,
773    0_
$w MED00156180 $t Heart rhythm $x 1556-3871 $g Roč. 14, č. 3 (2017), s. 367-375
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27890798 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20180404 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20180404142449 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1288400 $s 1007727
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 14 $c 3 $d 367-375 $e 20161124 $i 1556-3871 $m Heart rhythm $n Heart Rhythm $x MED00156180
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20180404

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace