Kardiologiia · 2024
[Whether to implant a defibrillator or not? The Possibility of Using the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score Calculator in Real Practice].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ilov N N, Boytsov S A, Nechepurenko A A
Аннотация
AIM: To study the predictive capabilities of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator in assessing the benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 388 patients with NYHA II-IV functional class chronic heart failure (CHF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 % who underwent ICD placement for the primary prevention of SCD. Patients were followed up for two years to record the endpoints of first-time paroxysmal sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) or non-arrhythmic death.
RESULTS: According to the results of calculation with the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator, 276 (71 %) patients had a high risk of VT (score ≥7) and 150 (39 %) had a high risk of non-arrhythmic death (score ≥3). 336 (94%) patients would benefit from an ICD: 148 (38 %) with a high level of probability and 218 (56 %) with a medium level of probability. According to the incidence of endpoints, VT episodes predominated in the low-ICD benefit group (36%), while the high-ICD benefit group had a relatively high incidence of non-arrhythmic death (12%).
CONCLUSION: The results obtained for a cohort of Russian patients with CHF and reduced LVEF indicated that the use of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in routine clinical practice does not improve the stratification of SCD risk compared to the traditional approach to selecting patients with CHF for ICD based on the LVEF value.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 388 patients with NYHA II-IV functional class chronic heart failure (CHF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 % who underwent ICD placement for the primary prevention of SCD. Patients were followed up for two years to record the endpoints of first-time paroxysmal sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) or non-arrhythmic death.
RESULTS: According to the results of calculation with the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator, 276 (71 %) patients had a high risk of VT (score ≥7) and 150 (39 %) had a high risk of non-arrhythmic death (score ≥3). 336 (94%) patients would benefit from an ICD: 148 (38 %) with a high level of probability and 218 (56 %) with a medium level of probability. According to the incidence of endpoints, VT episodes predominated in the low-ICD benefit group (36%), while the high-ICD benefit group had a relatively high incidence of non-arrhythmic death (12%).
CONCLUSION: The results obtained for a cohort of Russian patients with CHF and reduced LVEF indicated that the use of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in routine clinical practice does not improve the stratification of SCD risk compared to the traditional approach to selecting patients with CHF for ICD based on the LVEF value.