AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an effective primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We examined whether dual-chamber (DC) ICDs confer a greater benefit than single-chamber (SC) ICDs, and compared the long-term outcomes of recipients of each type of device implanted for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2012, the DAI-PP registry consecutively enrolled 1258 SC- and 1280 DC-ICD recipients at 12 French medical centres. The devices were interrogated at 4- to 6-month intervals during outpatient visits, with a focus on the therapies delivered. The study endpoints were incidence of appropriate therapies, ICD-related morbidity, and deaths from all and from specific causes. The mean age of the SC- and DC-ICD recipients was 59 ± 12 and 62 ± 11 years, respectively (P< 0.0001). The distribution of genders, New York Heart Association functional classes and glomerular filtration rates, and the rates of ischaemic vs. dilated cardiomyopathies and of defibrillation tests at implant, were similar in both study groups. The rates of periprocedural complications were 12.1% in the DC- vs. 8.8% in the SC-ICD groups (P= 0.008). Over a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 2.2 years, pulse generators were replaced in 21.9% of the DC- vs. 13.6% of the SC-ICD group (P< 0.0001). The proportions of patients treated with ≥1 appropriate therapies (24.7 vs. 23.8%) and ≥1 inappropriate shocks (8.4 vs. 7.8%), and all-cause mortality (12.4 vs. 13.2%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this large registry of ICD implanted for primary prevention, DC-ICDs were associated with higher rates of peri-implant complications and generator replacements, whereas the survival and rates of inappropriate shocks were similar in both groups. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT#01992458. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an effective primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We examined whether dual-chamber (DC) ICDs confer a greater benefit than single-chamber (SC) ICDs, and compared the long-term outcomes of recipients of each type of device implanted for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2012, the DAI-PP registry consecutively enrolled 1258 SC- and 1280 DC-ICD recipients at 12 French medical centres. The devices were interrogated at 4- to 6-month intervals during outpatient visits, with a focus on the therapies delivered. The study endpoints were incidence of appropriate therapies, ICD-related morbidity, and deaths from all and from specific causes. The mean age of the SC- and DC-ICD recipients was 59 ± 12 and 62 ± 11 years, respectively (P< 0.0001). The distribution of genders, New York Heart Association functional classes and glomerular filtration rates, and the rates of ischaemic vs. dilated cardiomyopathies and of defibrillation tests at implant, were similar in both study groups. The rates of periprocedural complications were 12.1% in the DC- vs. 8.8% in the SC-ICD groups (P= 0.008). Over a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 2.2 years, pulse generators were replaced in 21.9% of the DC- vs. 13.6% of the SC-ICD group (P< 0.0001). The proportions of patients treated with ≥1 appropriate therapies (24.7 vs. 23.8%) and ≥1 inappropriate shocks (8.4 vs. 7.8%), and all-cause mortality (12.4 vs. 13.2%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this large registry of ICD implanted for primary prevention, DC-ICDs were associated with higher rates of peri-implant complications and generator replacements, whereas the survival and rates of inappropriate shocks were similar in both groups. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT#01992458. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Peter Michalek; Sasha Benjamin Hatahet; Martin Svetlosak; Peter Margitfalvi; Iveta Waczulikova; Sebastian Trnovec; Allan Böhm; Ondrej Benacka; Robert Hatala Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Robert T Greenlee; Alan S Go; David J Magid; Andrea Cassidy-Bushrow; Romel Garcia-Montilla; Karen A Glenn; Jerry H Gurwitz; Stephen C Hammill; John Hayes; Alan Kadish; Kristi Reynolds; Param Sharma; David H Smith; Paul D Varosy; Humberto Vidaillet; Chan X Zeng; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: George Thomas; Daniel Y Choi; Harish Doppalapudi; Mark Richards; Sei Iwai; Emile G Daoud; Mahmoud Houmsse; Arvindh N Kanagasundram; Sumeet K Mainigi; Steven A Lubitz; Jim W Cheung Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-05
Authors: Ahran D Arnold; James P Howard; Kayla Chiew; William J Kerrigan; Felicity de Vere; Hannah T Johns; Leonid Churlilov; Yousif Ahmad; Daniel Keene; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Graham D Cole; Prapa Kanagaratnam; S M Afzal Sohaib; Amanda Varnava; Darrel P Francis; Zachary I Whinnett Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2019-10-01