Heart rhythm · 2023
Implications of ventricular arrhythmia after cardiac resynchronization therapy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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, Shimamoto Keiko, 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: Conflicting data are available on whether ventricular arrhythmia (VA) or shock therapy increases mortality. Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of VA, little is known about the prognostic value of VA among patients with CRT devices.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of VA as a prognostic marker for CRT.
METHODS: We investigated 330 CRT patients within 1 year after CRT device implantation. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure.
RESULTS: Forty-three patients had VA events. These patients had a significantly higher risk of the primary endpoint, even among CRT responders (P = .009). Fast VA compared to slow VA was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-4.34; P = .035). Shock therapy was not associated with a primary endpoint (shock therapy vs antitachycardia pacing: HR 1.49; 95% CI 0.73-3.03; P = .269). The patients with VA had a lower prevalence of response to CRT (23 [53%] vs 202 [70%]; P = .031) and longer left ventricular paced conduction time (174 ± 23 ms vs 143 ± 36 ms; P = .003) than the patients without VA.
CONCLUSION: VA occurrence within 1 year was related to paced electrical delay and poor response to CRT. VA could be associated with poor prognosis among CRT patients.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of VA as a prognostic marker for CRT.
METHODS: We investigated 330 CRT patients within 1 year after CRT device implantation. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure.
RESULTS: Forty-three patients had VA events. These patients had a significantly higher risk of the primary endpoint, even among CRT responders (P = .009). Fast VA compared to slow VA was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-4.34; P = .035). Shock therapy was not associated with a primary endpoint (shock therapy vs antitachycardia pacing: HR 1.49; 95% CI 0.73-3.03; P = .269). The patients with VA had a lower prevalence of response to CRT (23 [53%] vs 202 [70%]; P = .031) and longer left ventricular paced conduction time (174 ± 23 ms vs 143 ± 36 ms; P = .003) than the patients without VA.
CONCLUSION: VA occurrence within 1 year was related to paced electrical delay and poor response to CRT. VA could be associated with poor prognosis among CRT patients.