CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Randomized Trial Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial Incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in a large cohort of all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Comparison of five contrast media Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns Society of cardiac angiography and interventions: suggested management of the no-reflow phenomenon in the cardiac catheterization laboratory Utilization and programming of an automatic MRI recognition feature for cardiac rhythm management devices Validation of High-Risk Features for Stent-Related Ischemic Events as Endorsed by the 2017 DAPT Guidelines Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

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.