Heart rhythm · 2015
Utilization trends and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with a single- vs a dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: Insights from the ALTITUDE Study.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Hsu Jonathan C, Saxon Leslie A, Jones Paul W, Wehrenberg Scott, Marcus Gregory M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Historically, the most commonly implanted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead is dual coil. Conventional wisdom holds that single-coil leads may be less effective than dual-coil leads, but easier to extract. No contemporary large-scale studies have evaluated the relative epidemiology of these 2 leads or compared their respective clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate trends in single- vs dual-coil ICD lead implantation and differences in clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We evaluated 129,520 ICD recipients enrolled in the LATITUDE remote monitoring system between 2004 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used for univariate and multivariate survival analysis, respectively.
RESULTS: The majority of ICD recipients received a dual-coil lead (n = 110,330 [85.2%]). Single-coil lead implantation increased from 1.9% to 55.2% between 2004 and 2014. After adjusting for age, sex, device type, and year of implant, single-coil lead implantation was associated with a greater odds of induction for defibrillation testing (odds ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.09; P = .0274), a higher rate of lead being taken out of service (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.06-1.33; P = .0032), and a decreased mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.96; P = .0004). In a 795 patient subset with adjudicated shock outcomes, first shock success was no different (87.0% in single coil vs 86.1% in dual coil; P = .8473).
CONCLUSION: In a large real-world US population, single-coil lead implantation rates increased substantially between 2004 and 2014. Single-coil lead implantation was associated with more frequent defibrillation testing and the lead being taken out of service, but was not associated with increased mortality or more frequent defibrillation failure.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate trends in single- vs dual-coil ICD lead implantation and differences in clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We evaluated 129,520 ICD recipients enrolled in the LATITUDE remote monitoring system between 2004 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used for univariate and multivariate survival analysis, respectively.
RESULTS: The majority of ICD recipients received a dual-coil lead (n = 110,330 [85.2%]). Single-coil lead implantation increased from 1.9% to 55.2% between 2004 and 2014. After adjusting for age, sex, device type, and year of implant, single-coil lead implantation was associated with a greater odds of induction for defibrillation testing (odds ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.09; P = .0274), a higher rate of lead being taken out of service (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.06-1.33; P = .0032), and a decreased mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.96; P = .0004). In a 795 patient subset with adjudicated shock outcomes, first shock success was no different (87.0% in single coil vs 86.1% in dual coil; P = .8473).
CONCLUSION: In a large real-world US population, single-coil lead implantation rates increased substantially between 2004 and 2014. Single-coil lead implantation was associated with more frequent defibrillation testing and the lead being taken out of service, but was not associated with increased mortality or more frequent defibrillation failure.