Gerrit Frommeyer1, Florian Reinke2, Dietrich Andresen3, Thomas Kleemann4, Stefan G Spitzer5, Joachim Jehle6, Johannes Brachmann7, Christoph Stellbrink8, Matthias Hochadel9, Jochen Senges9, Lars Eckardt2. 1. Clinic for Cardiology II-Electrophysiology, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. gerrit.frommeyer@ukmuenster.de. 2. Clinic for Cardiology II-Electrophysiology, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, Kardiologie Am Hubertus-Krankenhaus, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 5. Praxisklinik Herz Und Gefäße Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Straubing, Straubing, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. 9. Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung (IHF), Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter- defibrillator (ICD) therapy is established for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in different entities. However, data from large patient cohorts with electrical heart disease are rare. Therefore, we investigated these patients as well as patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by analyzing registry data from a multi-center 'real-life' registry. METHODS: The German Device Registry (DEVICE) is a nationwide, prospective registry with one-year follow-up investigating 5450 patients receiving device implantations in 50 German centers. The present analysis of DEVICE focussed on patients with electrical heart disease or HCM who received an ICD for primary or secondary prevention. RESULTS: 174 patients with HCM and 112 patients with electrical heart disease (long-QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy) were compared with 5164 other ICD patients. Median follow-up was 17.0 months. Patients in the control group were significantly older. Of note, overall mortality after 1 year was 1.8% in HCM patients, 6.6% in patients with electrical heart disease and 7.3% in the control group. Patients in the control group presented significantly more severe comorbidities. In contrast to HCM patients and the control group where primary prevention was the major indication for ICD implantation, 77.5% of patients with electrical heart disease received an ICD for secondary prevention. The number of surgical revisions was higher in patients with electrical heart disease. CONCLUSION: Data from the present registry display a surprisingly high mortality in patients with electrical heart disease equivalent to the control group. A high proportion of patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention may be regarded as a major determinant for these results, while severe comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and renal failure are major determinants for mortality in the control cohort.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter- defibrillator (ICD) therapy is established for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in different entities. However, data from large patient cohorts with electrical heart disease are rare. Therefore, we investigated these patients as well as patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by analyzing registry data from a multi-center 'real-life' registry. METHODS: The German Device Registry (DEVICE) is a nationwide, prospective registry with one-year follow-up investigating 5450 patients receiving device implantations in 50 German centers. The present analysis of DEVICE focussed on patients with electrical heart disease or HCM who received an ICD for primary or secondary prevention. RESULTS: 174 patients with HCM and 112 patients with electrical heart disease (long-QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy) were compared with 5164 other ICDpatients. Median follow-up was 17.0 months. Patients in the control group were significantly older. Of note, overall mortality after 1 year was 1.8% in HCM patients, 6.6% in patients with electrical heart disease and 7.3% in the control group. Patients in the control group presented significantly more severe comorbidities. In contrast to HCM patients and the control group where primary prevention was the major indication for ICD implantation, 77.5% of patients with electrical heart disease received an ICD for secondary prevention. The number of surgical revisions was higher in patients with electrical heart disease. CONCLUSION: Data from the present registry display a surprisingly high mortality in patients with electrical heart disease equivalent to the control group. A high proportion of patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention may be regarded as a major determinant for these results, while severe comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and renal failure are major determinants for mortality in the control cohort.
Authors: Silvia G Priori; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Andrea Mazzanti; Nico Blom; Martin Borggrefe; John Camm; Perry Mark Elliott; Donna Fitzsimons; Robert Hatala; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof; Keld Kjeldsen; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Antonio Hernandez-Madrid; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Tone M Norekvål; Christian Spaulding; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen Journal: Europace Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Julia Köbe; Dietrich Andresen; Sebastian Maier; Christoph Stellbrink; Thomas Kleemann; Bernd-Dieter Gonska; Sebastian Reif; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Lars Eckardt Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerold Mönnig; Julia Köbe; Andreas Löher; Kristina Wasmer; Peter Milberg; Stephan Zellerhoff; Christian Pott; Sven Zumhagen; Razvan Radu; Hans H Scheld; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Lars Eckardt Journal: Europace Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Kevin Willy; Markus Bettin; Florian Reinke; Nils Bögeholz; Christian Ellermann; Benjamin Rath; Patrick Leitz; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt; Gerrit Frommeyer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Gerrit Frommeyer; Dietrich Andresen; Hüseyin Ince; Sebastian Maier; Christoph Stellbrink; Thomas Kleemann; Karlheinz Seidl; Ellen Hoffmann; Bernhard Zrenner; Matthias Hochadel; Jochen Senges; Lars Eckardt Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Gerrit Frommeyer; Dirk G Dechering; Sven Zumhagen; Andreas Löher; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt; Florian Reinke Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Pia K Schuler; Laurent M Haegeli; Ardan M Saguner; Thomas Wolber; Felix C Tanner; Rolf Jenni; Natascia Corti; Thomas F Lüscher; Corinna Brunckhorst; Firat Duru Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 3.240