Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
Predictors of late arrhythmic events after generator replacement in Brugada syndrome treated with prophylactic ICD.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Migliore Federico, Martini Nicolò, Calo' Leonardo, Martino Annamaria, Winnicki Giulia, Vio Riccardo, Condello Chiara, Rizzo Alessandro, Zorzi Alessandro, Pannone Luigi, Miraglia Vincenzo, Sieira Juan, Chierchia Gian-Battista, Curcio Antonio, Allocca Giuseppe, Mantovan Roberto, Salghetti Francesca, Curnis Antonio, Bertaglia Emanuele, De Lazzari Manuel, de Asmundis Carlo, Corrado Domenico
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Predictors of late life-threatening arrhythmic events in Brugada syndrome (BrS) patients who received a prophylactic ICD implantation remain to be evaluated. The aim of the present long-term multicenter study was to assess the incidence and clinical-electrocardiographic predictors of late life-threatening arrhythmic events in BrS patients with a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and undergoing generator replacement (GR).
METHODS: The study population included 105 patients (75% males; mean age 45 ± 14years) who received a prophylactic ICD and had no arrhythmic event up to first GR.
RESULTS: The median period from first ICD implantation to last follow-up was 155 (128-181) months and from first ICD Implantation to the GR was 84 (61-102) months. During a median follow-up of 57 (38-102) months after GR, 10 patients (9%) received successful appropriate ICD intervention (1.6%/year). ICD interventions included shock on ventricular fibrillation (n = 8 patients), shock on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient), and antitachycardia pacing on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient). At survival analysis, history of atrial fibrillation (log-rank test; P = 0.02), conduction disturbances (log-rank test; P < 0.01), S wave in lead I (log-rank test; P = 0.01) and first-degree atrioventricular block (log-rank test; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with the occurrence of late appropriate ICD intervention. At Cox-regression multivariate analysis, S-wave in lead I was the only independent predictor of late appropriate ICD intervention (HR: 9.17; 95%CI: 1.15-73.07; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that BrS patient receiving a prophylactic ICD may experience late appropriate intervention after GR in a clinically relevant proportion of cases. S-wave in lead I at the time of first clinical evaluation was the only independent predictor of persistent risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events. These findings support the need for GR at the end of service regardless of previous appropriate intervention, mostly in BrS patients with conduction abnormalities.
METHODS: The study population included 105 patients (75% males; mean age 45 ± 14years) who received a prophylactic ICD and had no arrhythmic event up to first GR.
RESULTS: The median period from first ICD implantation to last follow-up was 155 (128-181) months and from first ICD Implantation to the GR was 84 (61-102) months. During a median follow-up of 57 (38-102) months after GR, 10 patients (9%) received successful appropriate ICD intervention (1.6%/year). ICD interventions included shock on ventricular fibrillation (n = 8 patients), shock on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient), and antitachycardia pacing on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient). At survival analysis, history of atrial fibrillation (log-rank test; P = 0.02), conduction disturbances (log-rank test; P < 0.01), S wave in lead I (log-rank test; P = 0.01) and first-degree atrioventricular block (log-rank test; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with the occurrence of late appropriate ICD intervention. At Cox-regression multivariate analysis, S-wave in lead I was the only independent predictor of late appropriate ICD intervention (HR: 9.17; 95%CI: 1.15-73.07; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that BrS patient receiving a prophylactic ICD may experience late appropriate intervention after GR in a clinically relevant proportion of cases. S-wave in lead I at the time of first clinical evaluation was the only independent predictor of persistent risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events. These findings support the need for GR at the end of service regardless of previous appropriate intervention, mostly in BrS patients with conduction abnormalities.