CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II Positive remodeling at 3 year follow up is associated with plaque-free coronary wall segment at baseline: a serial IVUS study Management of left main disease: an update Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Long-term outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to predict outcomes in short-length lesions treated with drug-eluting stents

Clinical Trial2018 Sep 27;379(13):1205-1215.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction

Olgin JE, Pletcher MJ, VEST Investigators et al. Keywords: wearable cardioverter–defibrillator; myocardial infarction; sudden death prevention

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Despite the high rate of sudden death after myocardial infarction among patients with a low ejection fraction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are contraindicated until 40 to 90 days after myocardial infarction. Whether a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator would reduce the incidence of sudden death during this high-risk period is unclear.


METHODS - We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with acute myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator plus guideline-directed therapy (the device group) or to receive only guideline-directed therapy (the control group). The primary outcome was the composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachy arrhythmia at 90 days (arrhythmic death). Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and nonarrhythmic death.


RESULTS - Of 2302 participants, 1524 were randomly assigned to the device group and 778 to the control group. Participants in the device group wore the device for a median of 18.0 hours per day (interquartile range, 3.8 to 22.7). Arrhythmic death occurred in 1.6% of the participants in the device group and in 2.4% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.21; P=0.18). Death from any cause occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the device group and in 4.9% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98; uncorrected P=0.04), and nonarrhythmic death in 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively (relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.19; uncorrected P=0.15). Of the 48 participants in the device group who died, 12 were wearing the device at the time of death. A total of 20 participants in the device group (1.3%) received an appropriate shock, and 9 (0.6%) received an inappropriate shock.


CONCLUSIONS - Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator did not lead to a significantly lower rate of the primary outcome of arrhythmic death than control. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Zoll Medical; VEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01446965 .).