Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2005
Differences in outcomes between patients treated with single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a substudy of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное 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.
Berenbom Loren D, Weiford Brian C, Vacek James L, Emert Martin P, Hall W Jackson, Andrews Mark L, McNitt Scott, Zareba Wojciech, Moss Arthur J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the influence of single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) on the occurrence of heart failure and mortality as well as appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II).
BACKGROUND: In MADIT-II, ICD therapy in patients with a prior myocardial infarction and ejection fraction < or =0.30 was associated with a 31% reduction in risk of mortality when compared to conventionally treated patients. An unexpected finding was an increased occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure in the ICD group.
METHODS: Data from 717 patients randomized to ICD therapy with single- or dual-chamber pacing devices in MADIT-II were retrospectively analyzed. Endpoints selected for analysis included death from any cause, new or worsening heart failure requiring hospitalization, death or heart failure, appropriate therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), and inappropriate ICD therapy for atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia.
RESULTS: A total of 404 single-chamber ICDs (S-ICDs) and 313 dual-chamber ICDs (D-ICDs) were implanted. Patients receiving D-ICDs were at a higher risk at baseline than those receiving S-ICDs, with older age, higher NYHA class, more frequent prior CABG, wider QRS complex, more LBBB, higher BUN level, a history of more atrial arrhythmias requiring treatment, and a longer time interval from their index myocardial infarction to enrollment. While there was a trend toward an increase in adverse outcomes in the D-ICD group, no statistically significant differences in heart failure or mortality were observed between S-ICD versus D-ICD groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with D-ICDs had a nonsignificant trend toward higher mortality and heart failure rates than patients with S-ICDs.
BACKGROUND: In MADIT-II, ICD therapy in patients with a prior myocardial infarction and ejection fraction < or =0.30 was associated with a 31% reduction in risk of mortality when compared to conventionally treated patients. An unexpected finding was an increased occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure in the ICD group.
METHODS: Data from 717 patients randomized to ICD therapy with single- or dual-chamber pacing devices in MADIT-II were retrospectively analyzed. Endpoints selected for analysis included death from any cause, new or worsening heart failure requiring hospitalization, death or heart failure, appropriate therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), and inappropriate ICD therapy for atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia.
RESULTS: A total of 404 single-chamber ICDs (S-ICDs) and 313 dual-chamber ICDs (D-ICDs) were implanted. Patients receiving D-ICDs were at a higher risk at baseline than those receiving S-ICDs, with older age, higher NYHA class, more frequent prior CABG, wider QRS complex, more LBBB, higher BUN level, a history of more atrial arrhythmias requiring treatment, and a longer time interval from their index myocardial infarction to enrollment. While there was a trend toward an increase in adverse outcomes in the D-ICD group, no statistically significant differences in heart failure or mortality were observed between S-ICD versus D-ICD groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with D-ICDs had a nonsignificant trend toward higher mortality and heart failure rates than patients with S-ICDs.