JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2019
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcome After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Patients With Chagas Heart Disease.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Rassi Fabio Mahamed, Minohara Lucas, Rassi Anis, Correia Luis Claudio Lemos, Marin-Neto José Antonio, Rassi Anis, da Silva Menezes Antonio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this analysis was to pool data from published studies on outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with Chagas heart disease (CHD).
BACKGROUND: CHD is characterized by a high burden of ventricular arrhythmias and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. The indications for ICD are not well established.
METHODS: An extensive literature search without language restrictions was performed to identify all studies on ICD therapy in patients with CHD. A random effects model was used to calculate percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Of 397 articles screened, 13 studies (all observational) were included. There were 1,041 patients (mean age at implantation 57 ± 11 years; 64% men), most of whom (92%) received an ICD for secondary prevention. Antiarrhythmic medication consisted of amiodarone (79%) and beta-blockers (44%). Overall, the annual all-cause mortality rate was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.9 to 11.7) in 2.8 ± 1.9 years of follow-up, and the annual sudden cardiac death rate was 2.0% (95% CI: 1.3 to 3.3) in 2.6 ± 1.9 years. In addition, 24.8% (95% CI: 15.7 to 37.0) of patients received 1 or more appropriate interventions (shocks or antitachycardia pacing), 4.7% (95% CI: 3.2 to 6.9) received inappropriate shocks, and 9.1% (95% CI: 5.5 to 14.7) had electric storms annually.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an ICD, annual all-cause mortality rate was 9%. Appropriate ICD interventions and electric storms were frequent, occurring at a rate of 25% and 9% per year, respectively. Inappropriate ICD shocks were not infrequent (5% per year). The benefits and risks of ICD therapy in patients with CHD should be carefully weighed until data from better studies become available.
BACKGROUND: CHD is characterized by a high burden of ventricular arrhythmias and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. The indications for ICD are not well established.
METHODS: An extensive literature search without language restrictions was performed to identify all studies on ICD therapy in patients with CHD. A random effects model was used to calculate percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Of 397 articles screened, 13 studies (all observational) were included. There were 1,041 patients (mean age at implantation 57 ± 11 years; 64% men), most of whom (92%) received an ICD for secondary prevention. Antiarrhythmic medication consisted of amiodarone (79%) and beta-blockers (44%). Overall, the annual all-cause mortality rate was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.9 to 11.7) in 2.8 ± 1.9 years of follow-up, and the annual sudden cardiac death rate was 2.0% (95% CI: 1.3 to 3.3) in 2.6 ± 1.9 years. In addition, 24.8% (95% CI: 15.7 to 37.0) of patients received 1 or more appropriate interventions (shocks or antitachycardia pacing), 4.7% (95% CI: 3.2 to 6.9) received inappropriate shocks, and 9.1% (95% CI: 5.5 to 14.7) had electric storms annually.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an ICD, annual all-cause mortality rate was 9%. Appropriate ICD interventions and electric storms were frequent, occurring at a rate of 25% and 9% per year, respectively. Inappropriate ICD shocks were not infrequent (5% per year). The benefits and risks of ICD therapy in patients with CHD should be carefully weighed until data from better studies become available.