Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2022
Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children and young adults: A meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Vetta Giampaolo, Parlavecchio Antonio, Magnocavallo Michele, Valente Debora, Caminiti Rodolfo, Polselli Marco, Vetta Francesco, Cirone Donatello, Cauti Filippo Maria, Crea Pasquale, Rossi Pietro, Chierchia Gian Battista, Bianchi Stefano, de Asmundis Carlo, Natale Andrea, Della Rocca Domenico Giovanni
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been demonstrated to successfully prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and young adults. A wide range of device-related complications/malfunctions have been described, which depend on the intrinsic design of the defibrillation system (transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [TV-ICD] vs. subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [S-ICD]).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD.
CONCLUSION: Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD.
CONCLUSION: Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients.