Heart rhythm · 2020
Outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in dialysis patients: Results from the S-ICD post-approval study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка 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.
El-Chami Mikhael F, Burke Martin C, Herre John M, Shah Manish H, Sadhu Ashish, Niebauer Mark J, Kutalek Steven P, Carter Nathan, Gold Michael R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic renal disease on hemodialysis (HD) have limited vascular access and are at high risk of bacteremia. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) avoids vascular access, so it may be advantageous in this patient population.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease enrolled in the multicenter S-ICD post-approval study (PAS).
METHODS: S-ICD PAS patients were stratified on the basis of the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of HD at the time of implantation. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Perioperative and intermediate-term outcomes 365 days postimplantation were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: There were 220 patients on HD (13.4%) at the time of implantation out of 1637 patients enrolled in the S-ICD PAS. Patients on HD (group 1) were older (57.4 ± 13.2 years vs 52.5 ± 15.2 years; P < .0001), more likely to be of African descent (48.6% vs 25.1%; P < .0001), and had lower ejection fraction (28.6% ± 11.3% vs 32.6% ± 14.9%; P < .0001) as compared with patients not on HD (group 2). Group 1 had more comorbidities and mortality was higher (17.4% vs 3.7%) than did group 2. The rate of complications calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate did not differ between the 2 groups (overall P = .9169), with a 1-year rate of 7.9% and 7.7% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. The rate of appropriate shocks was significantly higher in group 1 (Kaplan-Meier analysis, P = .0003), as was inappropriate shocks (P = .0137).
CONCLUSION: S-ICD is associated with similar adverse event rates but a higher risk of inappropriate and appropriate therapy in dialysis patients than in nondialysis patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease enrolled in the multicenter S-ICD post-approval study (PAS).
METHODS: S-ICD PAS patients were stratified on the basis of the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of HD at the time of implantation. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Perioperative and intermediate-term outcomes 365 days postimplantation were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: There were 220 patients on HD (13.4%) at the time of implantation out of 1637 patients enrolled in the S-ICD PAS. Patients on HD (group 1) were older (57.4 ± 13.2 years vs 52.5 ± 15.2 years; P < .0001), more likely to be of African descent (48.6% vs 25.1%; P < .0001), and had lower ejection fraction (28.6% ± 11.3% vs 32.6% ± 14.9%; P < .0001) as compared with patients not on HD (group 2). Group 1 had more comorbidities and mortality was higher (17.4% vs 3.7%) than did group 2. The rate of complications calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate did not differ between the 2 groups (overall P = .9169), with a 1-year rate of 7.9% and 7.7% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. The rate of appropriate shocks was significantly higher in group 1 (Kaplan-Meier analysis, P = .0003), as was inappropriate shocks (P = .0137).
CONCLUSION: S-ICD is associated with similar adverse event rates but a higher risk of inappropriate and appropriate therapy in dialysis patients than in nondialysis patients.