CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Management of Patients With NSTE-ACS: A Comparison of the Recent AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines Disrupting Fellow Education Through Group Texting: WhatsApp in Fellow Education? Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus Invasive Coronary Physiology After Stent Implantation: Another Step Toward Precision Medicine Causes of Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years Major infections after bypass surgery and stenting for multivessel coronary disease in the randomised SYNTAX trial Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association
|<<... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ...>>|

Original Research14 September 2021

JOURNAL：Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. Article Link

Significantly less inappropriate shocks in ischemic patients compared to non-ischemic patients: The S-ICD experience of a high volume single-center

E Oosterwerff, A Adiyaman, A Elvan et al. Keywords: S-ICD; ischemic cardiomyopathy; non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; inappropriate shocks

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) continues to be preferentially used in relatively young patients, with less advanced heart disease.

 

OBJECTIVE - We, therefore, studied the short and long-term efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in subgroups of patients, which are underreported at present.

 

METHODS - A total of 218 patients between November 2010 and February 2019 undergoing S-ICD with a follow up of at least 6 months implantation were included in a prospective registry. Mean follow up was 38 months.

 

RESULTS - The most common indication for S-ICD implantation was ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 106, 49%). Complication rate needing invasive intervention was 9% (n = 21). Appropriate shock rate in patients with an S-ICD was 3.5%/year. A total of 30 inappropriate shocks (IAS) occurred in 19 patients (8.7%; 2.7%/year). The proportion of appropriate and inappropriate shock rates in patients with different cardiomyopathies shows remarkable variances. There were significant more IAS (3.6%/year vs. 1.7%/year,p = .048) in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy versus patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Multivariate analysis identified, besides type of cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation (AF) as predictor for IAS.

 

CONCLUSION - In this real-world prospective registry we analyzed S-ICD performance in the more traditional ICD patient. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy had significantly less inappropriate therapy compared to patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and appear to be appropriate patients for this type of device.


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top