Circulation reports · 2025
Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Stratification Among Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ueda Nobuhiko, Ishibashi Kohei, Noda Takashi, Oka Satoshi, Miyazaki Yuichiro, Wakamiya Akinori, Nakajima Kenzaburo, Kamakura Tsukasa, Wada Mitsuru, Inoue Yuko, Miyamoto Koji, Nagase Satoshi, Aiba Takeshi, Kanzaki Hideaki, Izumi Chisato, Noguchi Teruo, Kusano Kengo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging.
METHODS AND RESULTS: In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.
METHODS AND RESULTS: In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.