Cargando…

Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies

BACKGROUND: Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dell’Era, Gabriele, Degiovanni, Anna, Occhetta, Eraldo, Magnani, Andrea, Bortnik, Miriam, Francalacci, Gabriella, Plebani, Laura, Prenna, Eleonora, Valsecchi, Sergio, Marino, Paolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29072989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.11.008
_version_ 1783231830550380544
author Dell’Era, Gabriele
Degiovanni, Anna
Occhetta, Eraldo
Magnani, Andrea
Bortnik, Miriam
Francalacci, Gabriella
Plebani, Laura
Prenna, Eleonora
Valsecchi, Sergio
Marino, Paolo
author_facet Dell’Era, Gabriele
Degiovanni, Anna
Occhetta, Eraldo
Magnani, Andrea
Bortnik, Miriam
Francalacci, Gabriella
Plebani, Laura
Prenna, Eleonora
Valsecchi, Sergio
Marino, Paolo
author_sort Dell’Era, Gabriele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. METHODS: We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. RESULTS: At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.96; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5405747
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54057472017-05-01 Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies Dell’Era, Gabriele Degiovanni, Anna Occhetta, Eraldo Magnani, Andrea Bortnik, Miriam Francalacci, Gabriella Plebani, Laura Prenna, Eleonora Valsecchi, Sergio Marino, Paolo Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article BACKGROUND: Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. METHODS: We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. RESULTS: At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.96; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null. Elsevier 2016-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5405747/ /pubmed/29072989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.11.008 Text en Copyright © 2016, Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Dell’Era, Gabriele
Degiovanni, Anna
Occhetta, Eraldo
Magnani, Andrea
Bortnik, Miriam
Francalacci, Gabriella
Plebani, Laura
Prenna, Eleonora
Valsecchi, Sergio
Marino, Paolo
Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title_full Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title_fullStr Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title_full_unstemmed Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title_short Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
title_sort persistence of icd indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication: effect on subsequent icd therapies
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29072989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2016.11.008
work_keys_str_mv AT delleragabriele persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT degiovannianna persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT occhettaeraldo persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT magnaniandrea persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT bortnikmiriam persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT francalaccigabriella persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT plebanilaura persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT prennaeleonora persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT valsecchisergio persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies
AT marinopaolo persistenceoficdindicationatthetimeofreplacementinpatientswithinitialimplantforprimarypreventionindicationeffectonsubsequenticdtherapies