Literature DB >> 18390985

Dual-chamber defibrillators reduce clinically significant adverse events compared with single-chamber devices: results from the DATAS (Dual chamber and Atrial Tachyarrhythmias Adverse events Study) trial.

Jesus Almendral1, Fernando Arribas, Christian Wolpert, Renato Ricci, Pedro Adragao, Erik Cobo, Xavier Navarro, Aurelio Quesada.   

Abstract

AIMS: This randomized trial evaluated clinically significant adverse events (CSAEs), in patients implanted with dual-chamber (DC) vs. single-chamber (SC) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). DC-ICD had atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) therapy capabilities. Strict programming recommendations were reinforced. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Patients with conventional SC-ICD indication were randomized to DC-ICD, SC-ICD, or a DC-ICD programmed as an SC-ICD (SC-simulated) and followed for 16 months. Patients in the DC and SC-simulated groups crossed over after 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of CSAE: all-cause mortality; invasive intervention; hospitalization (> 24 h) for cardiovascular causes; inappropriate shocks (two or more episodes); and sustained symptomatic AT lasting > 48 h. The outcome variable was a pre-specified score that corrected for clinical severity and follow-up duration. Three hundred and thirty-four patients were analysed (DC-ICD, n = 112; SC-ICD, n = 111; SC-simulated, n = 111). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.36 +/- 0.13, 69% were in functional class > or = II. CSAE occurred in 65 DC-ICD, 82 SC-ICD, and 84 SC-simulated patients. The outcome variable was 33% lower in the DC-ICD group (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.14-0.67; P = 0.0028). Mortality was 4% in DC, 9% in SC, and 10% in SC-simulated.
CONCLUSION: In patients with a standard SC-ICD indication, DC-ICD was associated with less CSAE when compared with SC-ICD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18390985     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eun072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  18 in total

Review 1.  Are dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators really better than single-chamber ones? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bing-Wei Chen; Qing Liu; Xu Wang; Ai-Min Dang
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Single vs. dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Emily P Zeitler; Gillian D Sanders; Kavisha Singh; Ruth Ann Greenfield; Anne M Gillis; Bruce L Wilkoff; Jonathan P Piccini; Sana M Al-Khatib
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 3.  "Two for the Price of One": A Single-Lead Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System with a Floating Atrial Dipole.

Authors:  Nicole E Worden; Musab Alqasrawi; Siva M Krothapalli; Alexander Mazur
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-04-30

4.  Single-brand dual-chamber discriminators to prevent inappropriate shocks in patients implanted with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a propensity-weighted comparison of single- and dual-chamber devices.

Authors:  Sem Briongos-Figuero; Ana Sánchez; M Luisa Pérez; José B Martínez-Ferrer; Enrique García; Xavier Viñolas; Ángel Arenal; Javier Alzueta; Nuria Basterra; Aníbal Rodríguez; Ignacio Lozano; Roberto Muñoz-Aguilera
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Variation in use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the national cardiovascular data registry.

Authors:  Dan D Matlock; Pamela N Peterson; Yongfei Wang; Jeptha P Curtis; Matthew R Reynolds; Paul D Varosy; Frederick A Masoudi
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-23

6.  Future Research Prioritization: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Older Patients.

Authors:  Sana M Al-Khatib; Jennifer M Gierisch; Matthew J Crowley; Remy R Coeytaux; Evan R Myers; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Optimal Programming of ICDs for Prevention of Appropriate and Inappropriate Shocks.

Authors:  Ronald Lo; Amin Al-Ahmad; Henry Hsia; Paul C Zei; Paul J Wang
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2008-09

8.  Association of single- vs dual-chamber ICDs with mortality, readmissions, and complications among patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention.

Authors:  Pamela N Peterson; Paul D Varosy; Paul A Heidenreich; Yongfei Wang; Thomas A Dewland; Jeptha P Curtis; Alan S Go; Robert T Greenlee; David J Magid; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  [Sandwiched between the single- and triple-chamber ICD: do we still need the dual-chamber ICD?].

Authors:  C W Israel
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2008-12

10.  Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: a single center experience in saudi arabia.

Authors:  Ahmad S Hersi
Journal:  Open Cardiovasc Med J       Date:  2010-09-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.