Circulation · 2003
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for prevention of sudden death in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Corrado Domenico, Leoni Loira, Link Mark S, Della Bella Paolo, Gaita Fiorenzo, Curnis Antonio, Salerno Jorge Uriarte, Igidbashian Diran, Raviele Antonio, Disertori Marcello, Zanotto Gabriele, Verlato Roberto, Vergara Giuseppe, Delise Pietro, Turrini Pietro, Basso Cristina, Naccarella Franco, Maddalena Francesco, Estes N A Mark, Buja Gianfranco, Thiene Gaetano
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC/D) is a condition associated with the risk of sudden death (SD).
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter study of the impact of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of SD in 132 patients (93 males and 39 females, age 40+/-15 years) with ARVC/D. Implant indications were a history of cardiac arrest in 13 patients (10%), sustained ventricular tachycardia in 82 (62%), syncope in 21 (16%), and other in 16 (12%). During a mean follow-up of 39+/-25 months, 64 patients (48%) had appropriate ICD interventions, 21 (16%) had inappropriate interventions, and 19 (14%) had ICD-related complications. Fifty-three (83%) of the 64 patients with appropriate interventions received antiarrhythmic drug therapy at the time of first ICD discharge. Programmed ventricular stimulation was of limited value in identifying patients at risk of tachyarrhythmias during the follow-up (positive predictive value 49%, negative predictive value 54%). Four patients (3%) died, and 32 (24%) experienced ventricular fibrillation/flutter that in all likelihood would have been fatal in the absence of the device. At 36 months, the actual patient survival rate was 96% compared with the ventricular fibrillation/flutter-free survival rate of 72% (P<0.001). Patients who received implants because of ventricular tachycardia without hemodynamic compromise had a significantly lower incidence of ventricular fibrillation/flutter (log rank=0.01). History of cardiac arrest or ventricular tachycardia with hemodynamic compromise, younger age, and left ventricular involvement were independent predictors of ventricular fibrillation/flutter.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARVC/D, ICD therapy provided life-saving protection by effectively terminating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Patients who were prone to ventricular fibrillation/flutter could be identified on the basis of clinical presentation, irrespective of programmed ventricular stimulation outcome.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter study of the impact of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of SD in 132 patients (93 males and 39 females, age 40+/-15 years) with ARVC/D. Implant indications were a history of cardiac arrest in 13 patients (10%), sustained ventricular tachycardia in 82 (62%), syncope in 21 (16%), and other in 16 (12%). During a mean follow-up of 39+/-25 months, 64 patients (48%) had appropriate ICD interventions, 21 (16%) had inappropriate interventions, and 19 (14%) had ICD-related complications. Fifty-three (83%) of the 64 patients with appropriate interventions received antiarrhythmic drug therapy at the time of first ICD discharge. Programmed ventricular stimulation was of limited value in identifying patients at risk of tachyarrhythmias during the follow-up (positive predictive value 49%, negative predictive value 54%). Four patients (3%) died, and 32 (24%) experienced ventricular fibrillation/flutter that in all likelihood would have been fatal in the absence of the device. At 36 months, the actual patient survival rate was 96% compared with the ventricular fibrillation/flutter-free survival rate of 72% (P<0.001). Patients who received implants because of ventricular tachycardia without hemodynamic compromise had a significantly lower incidence of ventricular fibrillation/flutter (log rank=0.01). History of cardiac arrest or ventricular tachycardia with hemodynamic compromise, younger age, and left ventricular involvement were independent predictors of ventricular fibrillation/flutter.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARVC/D, ICD therapy provided life-saving protection by effectively terminating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Patients who were prone to ventricular fibrillation/flutter could be identified on the basis of clinical presentation, irrespective of programmed ventricular stimulation outcome.