JavaScript NENÍ povolen !

BACKGROUND: In the ICD Sports Safety Registry, death, arrhythmia- or shock-related physical injury did not occur in athletes who continue competitive sports after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, data from non-competitive ICD recipients is lacking. This report describes arrhythmic events and lead performance in intensive recreational athletes with ICDs enrolled in the European recreational arm of the Registry, and compares their outcome with those of the competitive athletes in the Registry. METHODS: The Registry recruited 317 competitive athletes ≥ 18 years old, receiving an ICD for primary or secondary prevention (234 US; 83 non-US). In Europe, Israel and Australia only, an additional cohort of 80 'auto-competitive' recreational athletes was also included, engaged in intense physical activity on a regular basis (≥2×/week and/or ≥ 2 h/week) with the explicit aim to improve their physical performance limits. Athletes were followed for a median of 44 and 49 months, respectively. ICD shock data and clinical outcomes were adjudicated by three electrophysiologists. RESULTS: Compared with competitive athletes, recreational athletes were older (median 44 vs. 37 years; p = 0.0004), more frequently men (79% vs. 68%; p = 0.06), with less idiopathic ventricular fibrillation or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (1.3% vs. 15.4%), less congenital heart disease (1.3% vs. 6.9%) and more arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (23.8% vs. 13.6%) ( p < 0.001). They more often had a prophylactic ICD implant (51.4% vs. 26.9%; p < 0.0001) or were given a beta-blocker (95% vs. 65%; p < 0.0001). Left ventricular ejection fraction, ICD rate cut-off and time from implant were similar. Recreational athletes performed fewer hours of sports per week (median 4.5 vs. 6 h; p = 0.0004) and fewer participated in sports with burst-performances ( vs. endurance) as their main sports: 4% vs. 65% ( p < 0.0001). None of the athletes in either group died, required external resuscitation or was injured due to arrhythmia or shock. Freedom from definite or probable lead malfunction was similar (5-year 97% vs. 96%; 10-year 93% vs. 91%). Recreational athletes received fewer total shocks (13.8% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.01) due to fewer inappropriate shocks (2.5% vs. 12%; p = 0.01). The proportion receiving appropriate shocks was similar (12.5% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.51). Recreational athletes received fewer total (6.3% vs. 20.2%; p = 0.003), appropriate (3.8% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.06) and inappropriate (2.5% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.04) shocks during physical activity. Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation storms during physical activity occurred in 0/80 recreational vs. 7/317 competitive athletes. Appropriate shocks during physical activity were related to underlying disease ( p = 0.004) and competitive versus recreational sports ( p = 0.004), but there was no relation with age, gender, type of indication, beta-blocker use or burst/endurance sports. The proportion of athletes who stopped sports due to shocks was similar (3.8% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in recreational sports had less frequent appropriate and inappropriate shocks during physical activity than participants in competitive sports. Shocks did not cause death or injury. Recreational athletes with ICDs can engage in sports without severe adverse outcomes unless other reasons preclude continuation.

MeSH
defibrilátory implantabilní MeSH
dospělí MeSH
elektrická defibrilace * škodlivé účinky přístrojové vybavení mortalita MeSH
hodnocení rizik MeSH
kompetitivní chování MeSH
lidé MeSH
mladiství MeSH
mladý dospělý MeSH
náhlá srdeční smrt epidemiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
primární prevence MeSH
prospektivní studie MeSH
registrace MeSH
rizikové faktory MeSH
sekundární prevence MeSH
sportovci * MeSH
sporty * MeSH
srdeční arytmie diagnóza mortalita patofyziologie terapie MeSH
tělesná námaha * MeSH
výsledek terapie MeSH
Check Tag
dospělí MeSH
lidé MeSH
mladiství MeSH
mladý dospělý MeSH
mužské pohlaví MeSH
ženské pohlaví MeSH
Publikační typ
časopisecké články MeSH
multicentrická studie MeSH
práce podpořená grantem MeSH
srovnávací studie MeSH
Geografické názvy
Evropa MeSH

Článek online

Mortality reduction in relation to implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT)

Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology. 2014 ; 7 (5) : 785-92. (Arrhythmia and electrophysiology)

Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol
ISSN 1941-3084
Medvik
Zdroj

BACKGROUND: The benefit of novel implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) programming in reducing inappropriate ICD therapy and mortality was demonstrated in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT). However, the cause of mortality reduction remains incompletely evaluated. We aimed to identify factors associated with mortality, with focus on ICD therapy and programming in the MADIT-RIT population. METHODS AND RESULTS: In MADIT-RIT, 1500 patients with a primary prophylactic indication for ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator were randomized to 1 of 3 different ICD programming arms: conventional programming (ventricular tachycardia zone ≥170 beats per minute), high-rate programming (ventricular tachycardia zone ≥200 beats per minute), and delayed programming (60-second delay before therapy ≥170 beats per minute). Multivariate Cox models were used to assess the influence of time-dependent appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy (shock and antitachycardia pacing) and randomized programming arm on all-cause mortality. During an average follow-up of 1.4±0.6 years, 71 of 1500 (5%) patients died: cardiac in 40 patients (56.3%), noncardiac in 23 patients (32.4%), and unknown in 8 patients (11.3%). Appropriate shocks (hazard ratio, 6.32; 95% confidence interval, 3.13-12.75; P<0.001) and inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.31; P=0.01) were significantly associated with an increased mortality risk. There was no evidence of increased mortality risk in patients who experienced appropriate antitachycardia pacing only (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-2.88; P=0.98). Randomization to conventional programming was identified as an independent predictor of death when compared with patients randomized to high-rate programming (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.71; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In MADIT-RIT, appropriate shocks, inappropriate ICD therapy, and randomization to conventional ICD programming were independently associated with an increased mortality risk. Appropriate antitachycardia pacing was not related to an adverse outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT00947310.