Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes and programming strategies of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices in paediatric hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a UK National Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common mode of death in paediatric hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). This study describes the implant and programming strategies with clinical outcomes following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion in a well-characterized national paediatric HCM cohort.

Methods and results

Data from 90 patients undergoing ICD insertion at a median age 13 (±3.5) for primary (n = 67, 74%) or secondary prevention (n = 23, 26%) were collected from a retrospective, longitudinal multi-centre cohort of children (<16 years) with HCM from the UK. Seventy-six (84%) had an endovascular system [14 (18%) dual coil], 3 (3%) epicardial, and 11 (12%) subcutaneous system. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed at implant in 68 (76%). Inadequate DFT in four led to implant adjustment in three patients. Over a median follow-up of 54 months (interquartile range 28-111), 25 (28%) patients had 53 appropriate therapies [ICD shock n = 45, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) n = 8], incidence rate 4.7 per 100 patient years (95% CI 2.9-7.6). Eight inappropriate therapies occurred in 7 (8%) patients (ICD shock n = 4, ATP n = 4), incidence rate 1.1/100 patient years (95% CI 0.4-2.5). Three patients (3%) died following arrhythmic events, despite a functioning device. Other device complications were seen in 28 patients (31%), including lead-related complications (n = 15) and infection (n = 10). No clinical, device, or programming characteristics predicted time to inappropriate therapy or lead complication.

Conclusion

In a large national cohort of paediatric HCM patients with an ICD, device and programming strategies varied widely. No particular strategy was associated with inappropriate therapies, missed/delayed therapies, or lead complications.

SUBMITTER: Norrish G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947574 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Outcomes data in patients with cardiac amyloidosis after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation are limited. We compared outcomes of patients with ICDs implanted for cardiac amyloidosis versus nonischemic cardiomyopathies (NICMs) and evaluated factors associated with mortality among patients with cardiac amyloidosis. Methods and Results Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry data between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we created a 1:5 propensity-matched cohort of patients implanted with ICDs with cardiac amyloidosis and NICM. We compared mortality between those with cardiac amyloidosis and matched patients with NICM using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. We also evaluated risk factors associated with 1-year mortality in patients with cardiac amyloidosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Among 472 patients with cardiac amyloidosis and 2360 patients with propensity-matched NICMs, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis compared with patients with NICMs (26.9% versus 11.3%, P<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, cardiac amyloidosis was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.56-2.08). In a multivariable analysis of patients with cardiac amyloidosis, several factors were significantly associated with mortality: syncope (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.59), ventricular tachycardia (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.15-2.38), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.05-2.27), creatinine = 1.6 to 2.5 g/dL (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.32-3.02), and creatinine >2.5 (HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.72-6.93). Conclusions Mortality after ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with cardiac amyloidosis than in patients with propensity-matched NICMs. Factors associated with death among patients with cardiac amyloidosis include prior syncope, ventricular tachycardia, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and impaired renal function.

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.

Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Project description:Background Despite growing use of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S- ICD ), its clinical role in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia ( ARVC /D) patients remains undefined. We aim to elucidate the cardiac phenotype, implant characteristics, and long-term efficacy regarding appropriate therapy and complications in ARVC /D patients with an S- ICD implant. Methods and Results A transatlantic cohort of ARVC /D patients who underwent S- ICD implantation was analyzed for clinical characteristics, S- ICD therapy, and long-term outcome including device-related complications. The cohort included 29 patients (52% male, 76% probands, 59% with ARVC /D-associated mutation, 59% primary prevention [no prior sustained ventricular arrhythmias], and 45% first-generation S- ICD devices). At implant, all inducible patients (27/29) had conversion of induced ventricular fibrillation. Two patients (7%) had superficial infections of the incision site that were treated conservatively. Over a median follow-up of 3.16 years (interquartile range: 2.21-4.51 years), all episodes (6 patients, 4% per year) of sustained ventricular arrhythmias were appropriately detected and treated. Six patients (21%) experienced 39 inappropriate shocks, with 3 requiring device explantation. Oversensing of noncardiac signal (n=4; especially myopotentials) and cardiac signal (n=4) was the most frequent etiology. No lead or device dislodgement, infection, skin erosion, or explantation related to need for antitachycardia pacing was noted. Conclusions S- ICD can effectively treat both induced and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ARVC /D. The rate of inappropriate shocks, although considerable, is comparable to that in ARVC /D patients treated with transvenous ICD s. When they occurred, inappropriate shocks were primarily due to cardiac and, uniquely, noncardiac oversensing. We suggest potential strategies for minimizing inappropriate therapy.