Dataset Information

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome: Long-term follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended, the long-term outcomes and follow-up data with regard to ICD complications have led to controversy.

Hypothesis

In the present study, we described the data assimilated in a total of 11 studies, analyzing the outcome in 747 BrS patients receiving ICD.

Methods

Data were performed and analyzed after a systematic review of literature compiled from a thorough database search (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cinahl).

Results

The mean age of patients receiving ICD was (43.1?±?13.4, 82.5% males, 46.6% spontaneous BrS type I). Around 15.3% of the patients were admitted due to SCD and 10.4% suffered from atrial arrhythmia. Appropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients over a mean follow-up period of 82.3 months (47.5-110.4). The following complications were recorded: lead failure and fracture (5.4%), lead perforation (0.7%), lead dislodgement (1.7%), infection (3.9%), pain (0.4%), subclavian vein thrombosis (0.3%), pericardial effusion (0.1%), endocarditis (0.1%), psychiatric problems (1.5%), pneumothorax (0.7%). Inappropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients. The management of inappropriate shocks was achieved by pulmonary vein isolation (0.5%), drug treatment with sotalol (1.3%) or sotalol with beta-blocker (0.3%) and hydroquinidine (0.1%).

Conclusions

ICD therapy in BrS is associated with relevant ICD-related complications including a substantial risk of inappropriate shocks more frequently in symptomatic BrS patients.

SUBMITTER: El-Battrawy I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6788474 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome: Long-term follow-up.

El-Battrawy Ibrahim I Roterberg Gretje G Liebe Volker V Ansari Uzair U Lang Siegfried S Zhou Xiaobo X Borggrefe Martin M Akin Ibrahim I

Clinical cardiology 20190822 10

<h4>Background</h4>Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended, the long-term outcomes and follow-up data with regard to ICD complications have led to controversy.<h4>Hypothesis</h4>In the present study, we described the data assimilated in a total of 11 studies, analyzing the outcome in 747 BrS patients receiving ICD.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were performed and analyzed after a systematic revi ...[more]

PMID: 31441080

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is available for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) when immediate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not possible or indicated. Patient selection remains challenging especially in primary prevention. Long-term data on these patients is still lacking. 153 patients were included in this study. They were prescribed the WCD between April 2012 and March 2019 at the University Medical Center, Mannheim, Germany. The mean follow-up period was 36.2 ± 15.6 months. Outcome data, including all-cause mortality, were analyzed by disease etiology and ICD implantation following WCD use. We analyzed 56 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, 70 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 16 patients with prior need for ICD/CRT-D (device for cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator) explanation, 8 patients with acute myocarditis and 3 patients with congenital diseases. 58% of the patients did not need ICD/CRT-D implantation after WCD use. 4% of all patients suffered from appropriate WCD shocks. 2 of these patients (33%) experienced appropriate ICD shocks after implantation due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Long-term follow-up shows a good overall survival. All-cause mortality was 10%. There was no significant difference between patients with or without subsequent ICD implantation (p = 0.48). Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy numerically showed a higher long-term mortality than patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (14% vs. 6%, p = 0.13) and received significantly more ICD shocks after implantation (10% of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients versus 3% of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients, p = 0.04). All patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias during WCD use or after ICD implantation survived the follow-up period. Following WCD use, ICD implantation could be avoided in 58% of patients. Long-term follow-up shows good overall survival. The majority of all patients did not suffer from WCD shocks nor did receive ICD shocks after subsequent implantation. Patient selection regarding predictive conditions on long-term risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias needs further risk stratification.

Project description:Background Patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have high rates of long-term device-related complications and reoperations. Whether physician specialty training is associated with differences in long-term outcomes following ICD implantation is unclear. Methods and Results We linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify physicians who performed ≥10 index ICDs from 2006 to 2009. We used data from the American Board of Medical Specialties to group the specialty of the implanting physician into mutually exclusive categories: electrophysiologists, interventional cardiologists, general cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, and other specialties. Primary outcomes were long-term device-related complications requiring reoperations or hospitalizations and reoperations for reasons other than complications. We compared the cumulative incidence rates and case-mix adjusted rates of long-term outcomes of index ICD implantations across physician specialties. Our analysis had a median follow-up of 47 months and included 107 966 index ICD implantations. Electrophysiologists had the lowest rates of incident long-term device-related complications (14.1%; interventional cardiologists, 15.3%; general cardiologists, 15.4%; thoracic surgeons, 16.4%; other specialists, 15.2%; P<0.001) and reoperations for reasons other than complications (electrophysiologists, 16.7%; interventional cardiologists, 17.0%; general cardiologists, 18.0%; thoracic surgeons, 18.4%; other specialists, 18.0%; P<0.001). Compared with patients whose ICDs were implanted by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by nonelectrophysiologists were at higher risk of having long-term device-related complications (relative risk for interventional cardiologists: 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08-1.25]; general cardiologists: 1.13 [1.08-1.18]; thoracic surgeons: 1.20 [1.06-1.37]; all P<0.001, but not other specialists: 1.08 [0.99-1.17]; P=0.07). Compared to patients with implantations performed by electrophysiologists, patients with implantations performed by general cardiologists and thoracic surgeons were at higher risk of reoperation for noncomplication causes (relative risk for general cardiologists: 1.10 [1.05-1.15]; thoracic surgeons: 1.16 [1.00-1.33]; both P<0.05). Conclusions Patients with ICD implantations performed by electrophysiologists had the lowest risks of having long-term device-related complications and reoperations for noncomplication causes. Consideration of physician specialty before ICD implantation may represent an opportunity to minimize long-term adverse outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks on subsequent mortality.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether the arrhythmic substrate leading to ICD therapy or the therapy itself increases mortality.MethodsThe study cohort included 5,516 ICD recipients who were enrolled in 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, RAID). The authors evaluated the association of device therapy with subsequent mortality in 4 separate time-dependent models: model I, type of ICD therapy; model II, type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered; model III, combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up; and model IV, incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks.ResultsWhen analyzed by the type of ICD therapy (model I), a first appropriate ICD shock was associated with increased risk of subsequent mortality with or without concomitant occurrence of inappropriate shock during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.78 and 2.31; p < 0.001 and p = 0.12), whereas inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk (HR: 1.23; p = 0.42). Similarly, ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (model II) was associated with increased risk of death with or without concomitant therapy for VT <200 beats/min (HRs: 2.25 and 2.62; both p < 0.001), whereas appropriate therapy for VT <200 beats/min or inappropriate therapy (regardless of etiology) did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.10). Combined assessment of all therapy and arrhythmia types during follow-up (model III) showed that appropriate ICD shocks for VF, shocks for fast VT (≥200 beats/min) without prior antitachycardia pacing (ATP), as well as shocks for fast VT delivered after failed ATP, were associated with the highest risk of subsequent death (HR: all >2.8; p < 0.001). Finally, 2 or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with incremental risk to the first appropriate ICD shock (model IV).ConclusionThe combined data from 5 landmark ICD trials suggest that the underlying arrhythmic substrate rather than the ICD therapy is the more important determinant of mortality in ICD recipients.

Dataset Information

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome: Long-term follow-up.

Background

Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome: Long-term follow-up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets