CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Limitations of Repeat Revascularization as an Outcome Measure 2-Year Outcomes After Stenting of Lipid-Rich and Nonrich Coronary Plaques Poor R-wave progression as a predictor of sudden cardiac death in general population and subjects with coronary artery disease The spectrum of chronic coronary syndromes: genetics, imaging, and management after PCI and CABG Patient Characteristics Associated With Antianginal Medication Escalation and De-Escalation Following Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the OPEN CTO Registry 2020 AHA/ACC Key Data Elements and Definitions for Coronary Revascularization A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Coronary Revascularization) Large-Bore Radial Access for Complex PCI: A Flash of COLOR With Some Shades of Grey Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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.