Literature DB >> 29540431

Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention.

Sérgio Barra1, Rui Providência2, Serge Boveda3, Rudolf Duehmke1, Kumar Narayanan4,5, Anthony W Chow2, Olivier Piot6, Didier Klug7, Pascal Defaye8, Daniel Gras9, Jean-Claude Deharo10, Paul Milliez11, Antoine Da Costa12, Pierre Mondoly13, Jorge Gonzalez-Panizo1, Christophe Leclercq14, Patrick Heck1, Munmohan Virdee1, Nicolas Sadoul15, Jean-Yves Le Heuzey16,17, Eloi Marijon4,16,17.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), the choice between a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) versus defibrillator (CRT-D) remains controversial and indications in this setting have not been well delineated. Apart from inappropriate therapies, which are inherent to the presence of a defibrillator, whether adding defibrillator to CRT in the primary prevention setting impacts risk of other acute and late device-related complications has not been well studied and may bear relevance for device selection.
METHODS: Observational multicentre European cohort study of 3008 consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, undergoing CRT implantation with (CRT-D, n=1785) or without (CRT-P, n=1223) defibrillator. Using propensity score and competing risk analyses, we assessed the risk of significant device-related complications requiring surgical reintervention. Inappropriate shocks were not considered except those due to lead malfunction requiring lead revision.
RESULTS: Acute complications occurred in 148 patients (4.9%), without significant difference between groups, even after considering potential confounders (OR=1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.00, p=0.47). During a mean follow-up of 41.4±29 months, late complications occurred in 475 patients, giving an annual incidence rate of 26 (95% CI 9 to 43) and 15 (95% CI 6 to 24) per 1000 patient-years in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, respectively. CRT-D was independently associated with increased occurrence of late complications (HR=1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23, p=0.001). In particular, when compared with CRT-P, CRT-D was associated with an increased risk of device-related infection (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p=0.004). Acute complications did not predict overall late complications, but predicted device-related infection (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.56, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CRT-P, CRT-D is associated with a similar risk of periprocedural complications but increased risk of long-term complications, mainly infection. This needs to be considered in the decision of implanting CRT with or without a defibrillator. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  heart failure; implanted cardiac defibrillators; pacemakers; quality and outcomes of care

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29540431     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  8 in total

1.  Cardiac Resynchronization and Defibrillator Therapy (CRT-D) or CRT Alone (CRT-P) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure without late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) high-risk markers - CRT-REALITY study - Study design and rationale.

Authors:  Milos Taborsky; Tomas Skala; Renata Aiglova; Marian Fedorco; Josef Kautzner; Tomas Jandik; Vlastimil Vancura; Ales Linhart; Martin Valek; Miloslav Novak; Petr Kala; Rostislav Polasek; Tomas Roubicek; Alexandr Schee; Gerhard Hindricks; Nikolaos Dagres; Robert Hatala; Jiri Jarkovsky
Journal:  Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 1.245

2.  Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis.

Authors:  Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist; Bozena Ostrowska
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 5.214

3.  Sudden cardiac death after implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker: a case report illustrating that not always less is more.

Authors:  Dirk Vollmann; Claudius Hansen; Peter Hunold; Lars Lüthje
Journal:  Eur Heart J Case Rep       Date:  2021-01-01

4.  Device runtime and costs of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers - a health claims data analysis.

Authors:  Moritz Hadwiger; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks; Helmut L'hoest; Ursula Marschall; Alexander Katalinic; Fabian-Simon Frielitz
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2022-03-04

5.  Change in indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Authors:  Dennis Lawin; Christoph Stellbrink
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronisation therapy with or without defibrillator based on health claims data.

Authors:  Moritz Hadwiger; Laura Schumann; Nora Eisemann; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks; Janina Haug; Michael Wolf; Ursula Marschall; Alexander Katalinic; Fabian-Simon Frielitz
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2022-09-02

7.  Predictors of clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients ≥75 years of age: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Laure Champ-Rigot; Anne-Laure Cornille; Pierre Ollitrault; Arnaud Pellissier; Mathieu Chequel; Damien Legallois; Paul Milliez
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 3.921

8.  Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy in Patients with Moderate to Severe Heart Failure in Germany: A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Additional Defibrillator.

Authors:  Moritz Hadwiger; Fabian-Simon Frielitz; Nora Eisemann; Christian Elsner; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks; Alexander Katalinic
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.561

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.