Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
ICD Treatment (icd + treatment)
Selected AbstractsLong-Term Incidence of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmia and Shock Therapy in Patients with Primary Defibrillator Implantation Does Not Differ from Event Rates in Patients Treated for Survived Cardiac ArrestJOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2005ULRICH BACKENKÖHLER M.D. Introduction: Recent trials have demonstrated benefit of prophylactic defibrillator (ICD) implantation compared to conventional treatment in high-risk patients. However, many patients have rare or no sustained arrhythmias following implantation. Our study addresses the question, whether patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation have a lower risk for life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) compared to sudden cardiac death (SCD) survivors. Methods and Results: Over 7 years we enrolled 245 patients. Occurrence of spontaneous sustained VT/VF resulting in adequate ICD treatment was the endpoint. Incidence, type, and treatment of sustained arrhythmia in 43 previously asymptomatic ICD recipients (group B) were compared to data of 202 survivors of imminent SCD (group A). All patients had severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%). Group B patients had long runs (>6 cycles, <30 s) of VT during Holter monitoring and inducible sustained arrhythmia. Incidence of rapid VT and VF (cycle length <240 ms/heart rate >250 bpm) after 4 years (35% in both groups, P = ns) and adequate defibrillator therapies (57% vs 55%, P = ns) were similar in both groups after univariate and multivariate analysis. Cumulative mortality tended to be lower in group B compared to group A, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: During long-term follow-up, incidence of sustained rapid ventricular arrhythmia in prophylactically treated patients is as high as that of SCD survivors. Benefit from defibrillator implantation for primary prevention (group B) appears to be comparable to that for survived cardiac arrest (group A). [source] Congenital Short QT Syndrome and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Treatment:JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 12 2003Inherent Risk for Inappropriate Shock Delivery Introduction: A congenital short QT interval constitutes a new primary electrical abnormality associated with syncope and/or sudden cardiac death. We report on the initial use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with inherited short QT interval and discuss sensing abnormalities and detection issues. Methods and Results: In five consecutive patients from two unrelated European families who had structurally normal hearts, excessively shortened QT intervals, and a strong positive family history of sudden cardiac death, ICDs were placed for primary and secondary prevention. Mean QT intervals were 252 ± 13 ms (QTc 287 ± 13 ms). Despite normal sensing behavior during intraoperative and postoperative device testing, 3 of 5 patients experienced inappropriate shock therapies for T wave oversensing 30 ± 26 days after implantation. Programming lower sensitivities and decay delays prevented further inappropriate discharges. Conclusion: The congenital short QT syndrome constitutes a new clinical entity with an increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Currently, ICD treatment is the only therapeutic option. In patients with short QT interval and implanted ICD, increased risk for inappropriate therapy is inherent due to the detection of short-coupled and prominent T waves. Careful testing of ICD function and adaptation of sensing levels and decay delays without sacrificing correct arrhythmia detection are essential. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. 1273-1277, December 2003) [source] Improved Survival of Cardiac Transplantation Candidates with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy:JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2003Role of Beta-Blocker or Amiodarone Treatment Introduction: Survival in patients awaiting cardiac transplantation is poor due to the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia. The potential role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this group of patients has been the subject of increasing interest. The aims of this study were to ascertain whether ICDs improve the survival rate of patients on the waiting list for cardiac transplantation and whether any improvement is independent of concomitant beta-blocker or amiodarone therapy. Methods and Results: Data comprised findings from 310 consecutive patients at a single center who were evaluated and deemed suitable for cardiac transplantation and placed on the waiting list. Kaplan-Meier actuarial approach was used for survival analysis. Survival analysis censored patients at time of transplantation or death. Of the 310 patients, 111 (35.8%) underwent successful cardiac transplantation and 164 (52.9%) died while waiting; 35 patients remain on the waiting list. Fifty-nine (19%) patients had ICD placement for ventricular arrhythmias prior to or after being listed. Twenty-nine (49.1%) ICD patients survived until cardiac transplantation, 13 (22%) patients died, and 17 (28.8%) remain on the waiting list. Among non-ICD patients, 82 (32.7%) received transplants, 151 (60.2%) died, and 18 (7.2%) remain on the waiting list. Survival rates at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were better for all ICD patients compared to non-ICD patients (log-rankx2, P = 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, ICD therapy and beta-blocker treatment were the strongest predictors of survival. Further, ICD treatment was associated with improved survival independent of concomitant treatment with beta-blocker or amiodarone. Among ICD and non-ICD patients treated with a beta-blocker or amiodarone, survivals at the 1 and 4 years were 93% vs 69% and 57% vs 32%, respectively (log-rankx2, P = 0.003). Conclusion: ICD therapy is associated with improved survival in high-risk cardiac transplant candidates, and ICD benefit appears to be independent of concomitant treatment. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. 578-583, June 2003) [source] Transcoronary Ablation of Septal Hypertrophy Does Not Alter ICD Intervention Rates in High Risk Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive CardiomyopathyPACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2005THORSTEN LAWRENZ Introduction: Transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy (TASH) is safe and effectively reduces the intraventricular gradient in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). To analyze the potential of anti- and proarrhythmic effects of TASH, we studied the discharge rates of implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients with HOCM who are at a high risk for sudden cardiac death. Methods: ICD and TASH were performed in 15 patients. Indications for ICD-implantation were secondary prevention in nine patients after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with documented ventricular fibrillation (n = 7) or sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 2) and primary prevention in 6 patients with a family history of sudden deaths, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and/or syncope. All the patients had severe symptoms due to HOCM (NYHA functional class = 2.9). Results: During a mean follow-up time of 41 ± 22.7 months following the TASH procedure, 4 patients had episodes of appropriate discharges (8% per year). The discharge rate in the secondary prevention group was 10% per year and 5% in the group with primary prophylactic implants. Three patients died during follow-up (one each of pulmonary embolism, stroke, and sudden death). Conclusion: In conclusion, on the basis of ICD-discharge rates in HOCM-patients at high risk for sudden death, there is no evidence for an unfavorable arrhythmogenic effect of TASH. The efficacy of ICD treatment for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in HOCM could be confirmed, however, mortality is high in this cohort of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients. [source] Prophylactic Implantation of Cardioverter Defibrillators in Idiopathic Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy for the Primary Prevention of Death: A Narrative ReviewCLINICAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 5 2010Cihan Cevik MD, FESC Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces sudden cardiac death rates and reduces mortality in patients with ischemic heart disease and low ejection fractions. One-third of the deaths in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy are sudden. However, the efficacy of ICDs in the primary prevention of death in these patients is less clear. The most common cause of mortality in patients treated with ICDs is heart failure progression. ICD shocks can cause direct myocardial injury, fibrosis, inflammation, and adverse psychological outcomes, and these changes may contribute to the ventricular dysfunction in patients who already have a significantly depressed ejection fraction. We have reviewed the published randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis of prophylactic ICD therapy in the primary prevention of death in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The individual randomized controlled trials do not report a statistically significant reduction of mortality unless the ICD treatment is added to cardiac resynchronization therapy, but the meta-analysis did show a significant mortality reduction and favored ICD therapy in these patients. Medical management of many study participants was suboptimal, at least based on current guidelines. The patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy have good outcomes with medical therapy, and ICD therapy in this relatively low-risk population needs better selection criteria. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] | ||||||||||