Literature DB >> 17709759

Systematic review: implantable cardioverter defibrillators for adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Justin A Ezekowitz1, Brian H Rowe, Donna M Dryden, Nicola Hooton, Ben Vandermeer, Carol Spooner, Finlay A McAlister.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction have an increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias.
PURPOSE: To summarize the evidence about benefits and harms of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in adult patients with LV systolic dysfunction. DATA SOURCES: A search of electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports) from 1980 through April 2007, not limited by language of publication, was supplemented by hand searches and contact with study authors and device manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies on the basis of prespecified criteria. They selected 12 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) (8516 patients) that reported on mortality and 76 observational studies (96 951 patients) that examined safety or effectiveness. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted in duplicate and independently by 2 reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: In adult patients with LV systolic dysfunction, 86% of whom had New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms, ICDs reduced all-cause mortality by 20% (95% CI, 10% to 29%) in the RCTs and by 46% (CI, 32% to 57%) in the observational studies. Death associated with implantation of ICDs occurred during 1.2% (CI, 0.9% to 1.5%) of procedures. The frequency of postimplantation complications per 100 patient-years included 1.4 (CI, 1.2 to 1.6) device malfunctions, 1.5 (CI, 1.3 to 1.8) lead problems, and 0.6 (CI, 0.5 to 0.8) site infection. Rates of inappropriate discharges per 100 patient-years ranged from 19.1 (CI, 16.5 to 22.0) in RCTs to 4.9 (CI, 4.5 to 5.3) in observational studies. LIMITATIONS: Studies were of short duration and infrequently reported nonfatal outcomes. Few studies evaluated dual-chamber ICDs. Lack of individual-patient data prevents identification of subgroup-specific effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are efficacious in reducing mortality for adult patients with LV systolic dysfunction, and this benefit extends to nontrial populations. Improved risk stratification tools to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from ICD are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17709759     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  39 in total

1.  Combined cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and C-reactive protein levels identify a cohort at low risk for defibrillator firings and death.

Authors:  Katherine C Wu; Gary Gerstenblith; Eliseo Guallar; Joseph E Marine; Darshan Dalal; Alan Cheng; Eduardo Marbán; João A C Lima; Gordon F Tomaselli; Robert G Weiss
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 7.792

2.  Device therapy in heart failure.

Authors:  Finlay A McAlister
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-11

Review 3.  Effective communication and ethical consent in decisions related to ICDs.

Authors:  Alexander M Clark; Tiny Jaarsma; Patricia Strachan; Patricia M Davidson; Megan Jerke; James M Beattie; Amanda S Duncan; Chantal F Ski; David R Thompson
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 4.  Subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators: indications and limitations.

Authors:  Maria Grazia Bongiorni; Stefano Viani; Giulio Zucchelli; Andrea Di Cori; Luca Segreti; Luca Paperini; Dianora Levorato; Adriano Boem; Giulia Branchitta; Diana Andreini; Ezio Soldati
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2015-02

Review 5.  The timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Nawaf S Al-Majed; Justin A Ezekowitz
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in today's world.

Authors:  Giuseppe Boriani; Paolo Cimaglia; Mauro Biffi; Cristian Martignani; Matteo Ziacchi; Cinzia Valzania; Igor Diemberger
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2013-12-31

7.  Can machine learning complement traditional medical device surveillance? A case study of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Jonathan Bates; Craig S Parzynski; Joseph G Akar; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar R Desai; James V Freeman; Ginger M Gamble; Richard Kuntz; Shu-Xia Li; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Isuru Ranasinghe; Richard E Shaw; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2017-08-16

8.  Role of risk stratification after myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Vikas Kuriachan; Derek V Exner
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2009-02

9.  Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference guidelines on heart failure, update 2009: diagnosis and management of right-sided heart failure, myocarditis, device therapy and recent important clinical trials.

Authors:  Jonathan G Howlett; Robert S McKelvie; J Malcolm O Arnold; Jeannine Costigan; Paul Dorian; Anique Ducharme; Estrellita Estrella-Holder; Justin A Ezekowitz; Nadia Giannetti; Haissam Haddad; George A Heckman; Anthony M Herd; Debra Isaac; Philip Jong; Simon Kouz; Peter Liu; Elizabeth Mann; Gordon W Moe; Ross T Tsuyuki; Heather J Ross; Michel White
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 10.  Effectiveness of prophylactic implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators without cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dominic A M J Theuns; Tim Smith; Myriam G M Hunink; Gust H Bardy; Luc Jordaens
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.