...
首页> 外文期刊>JACC. Clinical electrophysiology. >Increased Hospitalizations and Overall?Healthcare Utilization in Patients?Receiving?Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks Compared With Antitachycardia Pacing
【24h】

Increased Hospitalizations and Overall?Healthcare Utilization in Patients?Receiving?Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks Compared With Antitachycardia Pacing

机译:增加住院和整体吗?利用患者接受?心律转复除颤器冲击而Antitachycardia踱来踱去

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of these therapies on healthcare utilization in a large patient cohort. BackgroundAntitachycardia pacing (ATP) terminates ventricular tachycardia and avoids delivery of high-voltage shocks. Few data exist on the impact of shocks on healthcare resource utilization compared with ATP. MethodsPROVIDE (Programming Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients With Primary Prevention Indication) was a prospective study of patients who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention at 97 U.S. centers (2008 to 2010). We categorized the PROVIDE patients by the type of therapy delivered:?no?therapy, ATP only, or at least 1 shock. All ICD therapies, hospitalizations, and deaths were adjudicated. Cumulative?cardiac hospitalizations, risk of all-cause death or cardiac hospitalization, and annual costs were compared?between groups. ResultsOf the 1,670 patients in PROVIDE, followed up for 18.1 ± 7.6 months, 1,316 received no therapy, 152 had ATP?only, and 202 received at least 1 shock. Patients receiving no therapy and those receiving only ATP had a lower?cumulative hospitalization rate and were at lower risk for death or hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.33 [p?< 0.001] and 0.33 [p?< 0.002], respectively). The cost of hospitalization was $2,874 per patient-year (95% confidence interval:?$877 to $5,140; p?= 0.002) higher for those receiving at least 1 shock than for those who received ATP only. There was no difference in outcomes or cost between patients receiving only ATP and those without therapy. ConclusionsAmong patients implanted with an ICD for primary prevention, those who received only ATP therapy?had reduced hospitalizations, mortality, and cost compared with those who received at least 1 high-voltage shock?and?had equivalent outcomes to patients who did not require any therapy. (Programming Implantable Cardioverter?Defibrillators in Patients With Primary Prevention Indication [PROVIDE];NCT00743522).
机译:本研究旨在ObjectivesThe目的评估这些疗法的效果医疗利用在一个大的患者群。BackgroundAntitachycardia踱步(ATP)终止室性心动过速和避免的高压冲击。冲击对医疗资源的利用率相比之下,ATP。植入型心律转复除颤器在初级预防患者表明)一个病人的前瞻性研究植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)一级预防(2008年至97年美国中心2010)。类型的疗法:交付?没有?或者至少1冲击。住院和死亡裁决。累积吗?全因死亡或心脏住院治疗年度成本比较?ResultsOf提供的1670名患者,紧随其后为18.1±7.6个月,1316没有收到治疗,ATP 152了?1冲击。那些接受只有ATP较低?住院率和较低的风险死亡或住院(风险比:0.33 (p ?0.001)和0.33 (p ?住院费用是2874美元patient-year(95%置信区间:?5140美元;至少比那些收到冲击1 ATP只有。患者接受只有ATP和之间没有治疗。植入ICD的初级预防,那些只收到了ATP治疗呢?住院治疗,死亡率,和成本比较与那些接受至少1高压冲击?和?不需要任何治疗。植入式心律转变器吗?初级预防指示患者(提供);NCT00743522)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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