Cargando…

Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: Aim of the study was to evaluate the b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kleemann, Thomas, Strauss, Margit, Kouraki, Kleopatra, Lampropoulou, Eleni, Fendt, Andràs, Werner, Nicolas, Zahn, Ralf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31317573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23234
_version_ 1783458498845081600
author Kleemann, Thomas
Strauss, Margit
Kouraki, Kleopatra
Lampropoulou, Eleni
Fendt, Andràs
Werner, Nicolas
Zahn, Ralf
author_facet Kleemann, Thomas
Strauss, Margit
Kouraki, Kleopatra
Lampropoulou, Eleni
Fendt, Andràs
Werner, Nicolas
Zahn, Ralf
author_sort Kleemann, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: Aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit‐harm profile of contemporary primary prophylactic ICD therapy. METHODS: A total of 1222 consecutive patients of a prospective single‐center ICD‐registry were analyzed who underwent primary prophylactic ICD implantation between 2000 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the implantation year: 2010‐2017 (group 1, n = 579) and 2000‐2009 (group 2, n = 643). RESULTS: The rate of estimated appropriate ICD therapy after 8 years was 51% in the 2000s and 42% in the 2010s (P < .001). The complication rate changed slightly from 53% to 47% (P = .005). This decline was mainly driven by the reduction of inappropriate ICD shocks (30% vs 14%, P < .001) whereas the rate of ICD shock lead malfunction and device/ lead infection remained unchanged over time. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy was an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07‐1.77). CONCLUSION: The ICD therapy rate for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary prophylactic ICD implantation is decreasing over the last two decades. Complication rate remains high due to an unchanged rate of ICD shock malfunctions and device infections. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6788478
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67884782019-10-18 Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy Kleemann, Thomas Strauss, Margit Kouraki, Kleopatra Lampropoulou, Eleni Fendt, Andràs Werner, Nicolas Zahn, Ralf Clin Cardiol Clinical Investigations BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: Aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit‐harm profile of contemporary primary prophylactic ICD therapy. METHODS: A total of 1222 consecutive patients of a prospective single‐center ICD‐registry were analyzed who underwent primary prophylactic ICD implantation between 2000 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the implantation year: 2010‐2017 (group 1, n = 579) and 2000‐2009 (group 2, n = 643). RESULTS: The rate of estimated appropriate ICD therapy after 8 years was 51% in the 2000s and 42% in the 2010s (P < .001). The complication rate changed slightly from 53% to 47% (P = .005). This decline was mainly driven by the reduction of inappropriate ICD shocks (30% vs 14%, P < .001) whereas the rate of ICD shock lead malfunction and device/ lead infection remained unchanged over time. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy was an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07‐1.77). CONCLUSION: The ICD therapy rate for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary prophylactic ICD implantation is decreasing over the last two decades. Complication rate remains high due to an unchanged rate of ICD shock malfunctions and device infections. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2019-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6788478/ /pubmed/31317573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23234 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Investigations
Kleemann, Thomas
Strauss, Margit
Kouraki, Kleopatra
Lampropoulou, Eleni
Fendt, Andràs
Werner, Nicolas
Zahn, Ralf
Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title_full Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title_fullStr Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title_short Contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD‐therapy
title_sort contemporary benefit‐harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic icd‐therapy
topic Clinical Investigations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31317573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23234
work_keys_str_mv AT kleemannthomas contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT straussmargit contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT kourakikleopatra contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT lampropouloueleni contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT fendtandras contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT wernernicolas contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy
AT zahnralf contemporarybenefitharmprofileovertwodecadesinprimaryprophylacticicdtherapy