Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal · 2018
Cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers versus defibrillators in older non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.
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.
Wang Yanting, Sharbaugh Michael S, Althouse Andrew D, Mulukutla Suresh, Saba Samir
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: With the recent publication of the negative DANISH trial, the mortality benefit of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been put in question in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). Because a majority of patients in DANISH receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, we investigated in the present study the survival of recipients of CRT pacemakers (CRT-P) versus CRT ICDs (CRT-D) in a cohort of older (≥75 years) NICM patients at our institution.
METHODS: A total of 135 NICM patients with CRT device were identified (42 with CRT-P and 93 with CRT-D) and were followed to the endpoint of all-cause mortality. Overall survival was compared between the CRT-P and CRT-D groups with adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 46 months from the time of CRT device implantation, there were 54 total deaths (40%): 14 in the CRT-P (33%) and 40 in the CRT-D (43%) groups. Overall, CRT-P recipients had similar unadjusted mortality compared to CRT-D recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.93), and this remained unchanged after adjusting for unbalanced covariates (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.47-1.89) including left ventricular ejection fraction, used of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and the Charlson comorbidity index.
CONCLUSION: Our data support that in older NICM patients with CRT devices, the addition of ICD therapy does not improve survival.
METHODS: A total of 135 NICM patients with CRT device were identified (42 with CRT-P and 93 with CRT-D) and were followed to the endpoint of all-cause mortality. Overall survival was compared between the CRT-P and CRT-D groups with adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 46 months from the time of CRT device implantation, there were 54 total deaths (40%): 14 in the CRT-P (33%) and 40 in the CRT-D (43%) groups. Overall, CRT-P recipients had similar unadjusted mortality compared to CRT-D recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.93), and this remained unchanged after adjusting for unbalanced covariates (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.47-1.89) including left ventricular ejection fraction, used of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and the Charlson comorbidity index.
CONCLUSION: Our data support that in older NICM patients with CRT devices, the addition of ICD therapy does not improve survival.