CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association When high‐volume PCI operators in high‐volume hospitals move to lower volume hospitals—Do they still maintain high volume and quality of outcomes? Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence and Controversies Volume brings value Developing and Testing a Personalized, Evidence-Based, Shared Decision-Making Tool for Stent Selection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using a Pre-Post Study Design Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation SCAI Expert Consensus Statement Update on Best Practices for Transradial Angiography and Intervention Temporal trends in percutaneous coronary interventions thru the drug eluting stent era: Insights from 18,641 procedures performed over 12-year period
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

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