首页> 外文期刊>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology >Differences in Tachyarrhythmia Detection and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy by Primary or Secondary Prevention Indication in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients.
【24h】

Differences in Tachyarrhythmia Detection and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy by Primary or Secondary Prevention Indication in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Patients.

机译:心脏再同步化治疗患者通过一级或二级预防适应证进行的心律失常检测和植入式心脏复律除颤器治疗的差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ICD Utilization Differences in the CRT ICD Population. Introduction: Although numerous trials have shown benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for either primary or secondary prevention, no trial has prospectively enrolled patients from both indications and analyzed ICD utilization between groups. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective review of MIRACLE ICD, a randomized, prospective double-blind trial of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the ICD population. Both secondary prevention (N = 563) and primary prevention patients (N = 415) were enrolled. Subgroup analysis for frequency of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes and detection accuracy revealed that primary prevention patients had a significantly lower frequency of appropriate episodes (0.09 vs 0.43 episodes/month) at significantly faster cycle lengths (303 +/- 54 ms vs 366 +/- 71 ms, P < 0.0001). These episodes were more likely to be classified as VF by the device and thus receive shock therapy (42% by device classification vs 19% in secondary prevention, P < 0.0001). The absolute rate of inappropriate detections in the primary prevention group per month of follow-up was lower but constituted a much higher proportion of all episodes (30% vs 14%, P < 0.0001). Most inappropriate detections in the secondary prevention group were due to rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation; most in the primary prevention patients were due to sinus tachycardia. Conclusion: Patients receiving an ICD for CRT therapy with primary prevention indications have a different clinical arrhythmia course than patients with a history of spontaneous VT/VF. This has implications for the optimal programming of ICDs. Longer-term, prospective evaluation of these differences is warranted and should be investigated in the broader ICD patient population. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 15, pp. 1-8, September 2004)
机译:CRT ICD人群中ICD使用率的差异。简介:尽管许多试验都显示出植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)可以用于一级或二级预防,但尚无一项针对这两种适应症的前瞻性患者入组并分析了两组间ICD利用率的试验。方法和结果:我们对MIRACLE ICD进行了回顾性回顾,这是一项针对ICD人群的心脏再同步治疗(CRT)的随机,前瞻性双盲试验。纳入二级预防(N = 563)和一级预防患者(N = 415)。对室性心动过速(VT)和室颤(VF)发作频率及检测准确性的亚组分析显示,一级预防患者的适当发作频率显着较低(0.09 vs 0.43发作/月),周期周期明显更长(303 + / -54毫秒vs 366 +/- 71毫秒,P <0.0001)。这些发作更可能被器械归类为室颤,因此接受电击治疗(按器械分类为42%,而二级预防为19%,P <0.0001)。初级预防组每月随访的不正确检测的绝对率较低,但在所有发作中所占比例较高(30%比14%,P <0.0001)。在二级预防组中,最不适当的检测是由于快速进行的房颤。在一级预防患者中,大多数是由于窦性心动过速。结论:接受ICD CRT治疗并具有一级预防适应症的患者与自发性VT / VF病史的患者相比,其临床心律失常过程有所不同。这对ICD的最佳编程有影响。有必要对这些差异进行长期的前瞻性评估,并应在更广泛的ICD患者人群中进行研究。 (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol,Vol.15,pp.1-8,2004年9月)

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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