Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2009
Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators reduce clinical adverse events related to atrial fibrillation when compared with single-chamber defibrillators: a subanalysis of the DATAS trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ricci Renato Pietro, Quesada Aurelio, Almendral Jesus, Arribas Fernando, Wolpert Christian, Adragao Pedro, Zoni-Berisso Massimo, Navarro Xavier, DeSanto Tiziana, Grammatico Andrea, Santini Massimo, DATAS study Investigators
Аннотация
AIMS: The aim of the present analysis of the DATAS study was to compare the impact of dual- vs. single-chamber defibrillators on atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence and AF-related clinical events in patients with Class I indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and no indication for dual-chamber pacing.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-four patients were randomized, through a centralized assignment, to single-chamber ICDs, dual-chamber ICDs programmed as single-chamber ICDs, and dual ICDs with full diagnostics and AF prevention and therapy capabilities. The latter two groups in the first 8 months of the study, when the study design was that of a randomized parallel trial, were compared in the present analysis. The primary endpoint was composed by the following AF-related clinical events: permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, cardiac-embolic events, and inappropriate ICD shocks due to AF misclassification. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were available for this analysis, of whom 111 in the single-chamber-simulated group and 112 in the dual-chamber true group. Atrial fibrillation-related composite endpoint raw incidence was 9 of 111 (8.1%) in the single-chamber group vs. 1 of 112 (0.9%) in the dual-chamber group (P = 0.0098 by Fisher's exact test). Single-chamber ICDs were associated with a significantly higher risk to develop the AF-related composite endpoint by Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 8.25, 95% CI 1.03-65.96, P = 0.047) and by the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test, P = 0.047).
CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber ICDs compared with single-chamber ICDs reduced the incidence of an endpoint composed by permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, and ICD shocks deemed inappropriate due to AF misclassification.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-four patients were randomized, through a centralized assignment, to single-chamber ICDs, dual-chamber ICDs programmed as single-chamber ICDs, and dual ICDs with full diagnostics and AF prevention and therapy capabilities. The latter two groups in the first 8 months of the study, when the study design was that of a randomized parallel trial, were compared in the present analysis. The primary endpoint was composed by the following AF-related clinical events: permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, cardiac-embolic events, and inappropriate ICD shocks due to AF misclassification. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were available for this analysis, of whom 111 in the single-chamber-simulated group and 112 in the dual-chamber true group. Atrial fibrillation-related composite endpoint raw incidence was 9 of 111 (8.1%) in the single-chamber group vs. 1 of 112 (0.9%) in the dual-chamber group (P = 0.0098 by Fisher's exact test). Single-chamber ICDs were associated with a significantly higher risk to develop the AF-related composite endpoint by Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 8.25, 95% CI 1.03-65.96, P = 0.047) and by the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test, P = 0.047).
CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber ICDs compared with single-chamber ICDs reduced the incidence of an endpoint composed by permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, and ICD shocks deemed inappropriate due to AF misclassification.