Literature DB >> 20639206

Right ventricular stimulation threshold at ICD implant predicts device therapy in primary prevention patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Jael Z Atary1, C Jan Willem Borleffs, Johanna G van der Bom, Serge A I P Trines, Marianne Bootsma, Katja Zeppenfeld, Lieselot van Erven, Martin J Schalij.   

Abstract

AIMS: Myocardial excitability is known (amongst other reasons) to be related to the degree of ischaemia, contractile dysfunction and heart failure. It was hypothesized that the right ventricular (RV) stimulation threshold has prognostic value with respect to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and patient survival in recipients of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND
RESULTS: Ischaemic heart disease patients receiving an ICD at Leiden University Medical Center as primary prevention for sudden cardiac death were included in this study. Right ventricular thresholds were determined at ICD implant. Data were collected on VAs triggering ICD therapy and on all-cause mortality. A total of 689 consecutive patients were included (87% male, age 63 ± 11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 29 ± 11%) and followed for a median of 28 months. Post-implant RV-threshold was 0.7 ± 0.5 volt (V) at 0.5 ms pulse duration. Best dichotomous separation was reached at a cut-off of 1 V. During follow-up, 167 (24%) patients received appropriate ICD therapy, 88 (13%) had appropriate shocks and 134 (19%) died. Cumulative appropriate shock incidence for patients with RV threshold ≥ 1 V (n = 166) was 16% at 1 year, 24% at 3 years and 34% at 5 years compared with 4, 11 and 17% for patients with an RV-threshold < 1 V (n = 523). Adjusted hazard ratio of RV threshold ≥ 1 V was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4-2.9) for appropriate therapy, 3.3 (95% CI: 2.0-5.4) for appropriate shocks and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1-2.5) for mortality.
CONCLUSION: The RV stimulation threshold at ICD implant has a strong independent prognostic value for the occurrence of VAs triggering appropriate ICD therapy, appropriate shocks and mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20639206     DOI: 10.1093/europace/euq266

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


  3 in total

1.  Shock or no shock - a question of philosophy or should intraoperative implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing be recommended?

Authors:  Andreas Keyser; Michael K Hilker; Sebastian Schmidt; Christian von Bary; Wolfgang Zink; Michael Ried; Christof Schmid; Claudius Diez
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-12-07

2.  Association between routine biomarkers and atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker.

Authors:  Konstantinos Kyrlas; Tong Liu; George Bazoukis; Sofia Plakoutsi; Evangelos Liberopoulos; Haralampos Milionis; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2020-12-17

3.  Significance of intraoperative testing in right-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Andreas Keyser; Michael K Hilker; Ekrem Ucer; Sigrid Wittmann; Christof Schmid; Claudius Diez
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 1.637

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.