首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Arrhythmia >2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS focused update to 2015 expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator programming and testing
【2h】

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS focused update to 2015 expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator programming and testing

机译:2019 HRS / EHRA / APHRS / LAHRS重点更新了2015年关于最佳植入式心脏复律除颤器编程和测试的专家共识声明

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE Expert Consensus Statement on Optimal Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Programming and Testing provided guidance on bradycardia programming, tachycardia detection, tachycardia therapy, and defibrillation testing for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) patient treatment. The 32 recommendations represented the consensus opinion of the writing group, graded by Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence. In addition, Appendix B provided manufacturer‐specific translations of these recommendations into clinical practice consistent with the recommendations within the parent document. In some instances, programming guided by quality evidence gained from studies performed in devices from some manufacturers was translated such that this programming was approximated in another manufacturer's ICD programming settings. The authors found that the data, although not formally tested, were strong, consistent, and generalizable beyond the specific manufacturer and model of ICD. As expected, because these recommendations represented strategic choices to balance risks, there have been reports in which adverse outcomes were documented with ICDs programmed to Appendix B recommendations. The recommendations have been reviewed and updated to minimize such adverse events. Notably, patients who do not receive unnecessary ICD therapy are not aware of being spared potential harm, whereas patients in whom their ICD failed to treat life‐threatening arrhythmias have their event recorded in detail. The revised recommendations employ the principle that the randomized trials and large registry data should guide programming more than anecdotal evidence. These recommendations should not replace the opinion of the treating physician who has considered the patient's clinical status and desired outcome via a shared clinical decision‐making process.
机译:2015年HRS / EHRA / APHRS / SOLAECE关于最佳植入式心脏复律除颤器编程和测试的专家共识声明为植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)患者治疗的心动过缓编程,心动过速检测,心动过速治疗和除颤测试提供了指导。这32条建议代表了写作小组的共识性意见,并按建议等级和证据等级进行了分级。此外,附录B还提供了将这些建议的制造商特定翻译结果翻译成与父文档中的建议一致的临床实践。在某些情况下,翻译是根据一些制造商在设备中进行的研究获得的质量证据指导的编程,从而使该编程近似于另一制造商的ICD编程设置。作者发现,这些数据尽管未经正式测试,但仍具有强大,一致和可推广的能力,超出了ICD的特定制造商和模型。不出所料,因为这些建议代表了平衡风险的战略选择,所以有报告表明不良后果已记录在附录B建议中的ICD中。已对建议进行了审查和更新,以最大程度地减少此类不良事件。值得注意的是,未接受不必要的ICD治疗的患者并没有意识到自己没有遭受潜在的伤害,而其ICD无法治疗危及生命的心律不齐的患者则对其事件进行了详细记录。修订后的建议采用了以下原则:随机试验和大量注册数据应指导编程,而不是传闻证据。这些建议不应取代通过共同的临床决策过程考虑了患者的临床状况和期望结果的主治医生的意见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号