Heart rhythm · 2018
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia: A systematic review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Roston Thomas M, Jones Karolina, Hawkins Nathaniel M, Bos J Martijn, Schwartz Peter J, Perry Frances, Ackerman Michael J, Laksman Zachary W M, Kaul Padma, Lieve Krystien V V, Atallah Joseph, Krahn Andrew D, Sanatani Shubhayan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) may be associated with a high risk of complications in patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT). However, ICDs in this population have not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the use and outcomes of ICDs in CPVT.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify studies that included patients with CPVT who had an ICD.
RESULTS: Fifty-three studies describing 1429 patients with CPVT were included. In total, 503 patients (35.2%) had an ICD (median age 15.0 years; interquartile range 11.0-21.0 years). Among ICD recipients with a reported medication status, 96.7% were prescribed β-blockers and 13.2% flecainide. Sympathetic denervation was performed in 23.2%. Nearly half of patients received an ICD for primary prevention (47.3%), and 12.8% were prescribed optimal antiarrhythmic therapy. During follow-up, 40.1% had ≥1 appropriate shock, 20.8% experienced ≥1 inappropriate shock, 19.6% had electrical storm, and 7 patients (1.4%) died. An ICD-associated electrical storm was implicated in 4 deaths. Additional complications such as lead failure, endocarditis, or surgical revisions were observed in 96 of 296 patients (32.4%). A subanalysis of the 10 studies encompassing 330 patients with the most detailed ICD-related data showed similar trends.
CONCLUSION: In this population with CPVT, ICDs were common and associated with a high burden of shocks and complications. The reliance on primary prevention ICDs, and poor uptake of adjuvant antiarrhythmic therapies, suggests that improved adherence to guideline-directed management could reduce ICD use and harm.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the use and outcomes of ICDs in CPVT.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify studies that included patients with CPVT who had an ICD.
RESULTS: Fifty-three studies describing 1429 patients with CPVT were included. In total, 503 patients (35.2%) had an ICD (median age 15.0 years; interquartile range 11.0-21.0 years). Among ICD recipients with a reported medication status, 96.7% were prescribed β-blockers and 13.2% flecainide. Sympathetic denervation was performed in 23.2%. Nearly half of patients received an ICD for primary prevention (47.3%), and 12.8% were prescribed optimal antiarrhythmic therapy. During follow-up, 40.1% had ≥1 appropriate shock, 20.8% experienced ≥1 inappropriate shock, 19.6% had electrical storm, and 7 patients (1.4%) died. An ICD-associated electrical storm was implicated in 4 deaths. Additional complications such as lead failure, endocarditis, or surgical revisions were observed in 96 of 296 patients (32.4%). A subanalysis of the 10 studies encompassing 330 patients with the most detailed ICD-related data showed similar trends.
CONCLUSION: In this population with CPVT, ICDs were common and associated with a high burden of shocks and complications. The reliance on primary prevention ICDs, and poor uptake of adjuvant antiarrhythmic therapies, suggests that improved adherence to guideline-directed management could reduce ICD use and harm.