Emily P Zeitler1,2, Gillian D Sanders2, Kavisha Singh3, Ruth Ann Greenfield4, Anne M Gillis5, Bruce L Wilkoff6, Jonathan P Piccini1,2, Sana M Al-Khatib1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, Alberta, CA, USA. 6. Robert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are key in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but outcomes may vary by type of device or programming [single chamber (SC) vs. dual chamber (DC)] in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication. We sought to meta-analyse patient outcomes of randomized trials of SC vs. DC devices or programming. Methods and results: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials databases for relevant studies excluding those published before 2000, involving children, or not available in English. Endpoints included mortality, inappropriate ICD therapies, and implant complications. Endpoints with at least three reporting studies were meta-analysed. We identified eight studies meeting inclusion criteria representing 2087 patients with 16.1 months mean follow-up. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD 1.92); in six studies reporting sex, most patients were male (85%). Comparing patients with a SC or DC ICD or programming, we found similar rates of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.68; P = 0.86] and inappropriate therapies (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.19; P = 0.07) in five and six studies, respectively. In three studies of SC vs. DC ICDs (but not programming) rates of pneumothorax and lead dislodgement were not different (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.18-24.72; P = 0.55 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.32-2.47; P = 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SC vs. DC ICD device or programming, there was no significant difference in inappropriate therapies, mortality, pneumothorax, or lead dislodgement. Future studies should compare these devices over longer follow-up and in specific patient populations.
Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are key in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but outcomes may vary by type of device or programming [single chamber (SC) vs. dual chamber (DC)] in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication. We sought to meta-analyse patient outcomes of randomized trials of SC vs. DC devices or programming. Methods and results: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials databases for relevant studies excluding those published before 2000, involving children, or not available in English. Endpoints included mortality, inappropriate ICD therapies, and implant complications. Endpoints with at least three reporting studies were meta-analysed. We identified eight studies meeting inclusion criteria representing 2087 patients with 16.1 months mean follow-up. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD 1.92); in six studies reporting sex, most patients were male (85%). Comparing patients with a SC or DC ICD or programming, we found similar rates of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.68; P = 0.86] and inappropriate therapies (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.19; P = 0.07) in five and six studies, respectively. In three studies of SC vs. DC ICDs (but not programming) rates of pneumothorax and lead dislodgement were not different (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.18-24.72; P = 0.55 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.32-2.47; P = 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SC vs. DC ICD device or programming, there was no significant difference in inappropriate therapies, mortality, pneumothorax, or lead dislodgement. Future studies should compare these devices over longer follow-up and in specific patient populations.
Authors: Paul A Friedman; Robyn L McClelland; William R Bamlet; Helbert Acosta; David Kessler; Thomas M Munger; Neal G Kavesh; Mark Wood; Emile Daoud; Ali Massumi; Claudio Schuger; Stephen Shorofsky; Bruce Wilkoff; Michael Glikson Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A P Hallstrom; H L Greene; D G Wyse; D Zipes; A E Epstein; M J Domanski; E B Schron Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1995-03-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kenneth Dickstein; Alain Cohen-Solal; Gerasimos Filippatos; John J V McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson; Anna Strömberg; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Dan Atar; Arno W Hoes; Andre Keren; Alexandre Mebazaa; Markku Nieminen; Silvia Giuliana Priori; Karl Swedberg Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jesus Almendral; Fernando Arribas; Christian Wolpert; Renato Ricci; Pedro Adragao; Erik Cobo; Xavier Navarro; Aurelio Quesada Journal: Europace Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Tariel A Atabekov; Roman E Batalov; Svetlana I Sazonova; Sergey N Krivolapov; Mikhail S Khlynin; Anna I Mishkina; Konstantin V Zavadovsky; Antonio Curnis; Sergey V Popov Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Erdal Safak; Lars Eckardt; Werner Jung; Hüseyin Ince; Jochen Senges; Matthias Hochadel; Christian Perings; Stefan Spitzer; Johannes Brachmann; Karlheinz Seidl; Hans Ulrich Hink; Giuseppe D'Ancona Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 1.900