Upfront endoscopic band ligation for symptomatic gastric angioectasias to reduce peri-endoscopic complexity with an automated implantable cardioverter defibrillator in situ.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zimmer V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8819643 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Upfront endoscopic band ligation for symptomatic gastric angioectasias to reduce peri-endoscopic complexity with an automated implantable cardioverter defibrillator in situ.
Clinical case reports 20220207 2
Argon plasma coagulation (APC) remains the mainstay endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal angioectasia. Vis-a-vis automated implanted cardioverter defibrillators (AICD) endoscopic band ligation (EBL) represents an alternative without need for heart-rhythm specialty support. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8142936 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8174382 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7300333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.
| S-EPMC10455445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.Methods and resultsA propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest.ConclusionsThough limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.
| S-EPMC7360169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is suboptimal as a sole marker for predicting sudden cardiac death (SCD). Machine learning (ML) provides new opportunities for personalized predictions using complex, multimodal data. This study aimed to determine if risk stratification for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation can be improved by ML models that combine clinical variables with 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG) time-series features.Methods and resultsA multicentre study of 1010 patients (64.9 ± 10.8 years, 26.8% female) with ischaemic, dilated, or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and LVEF ≤ 35% implanted with an ICD between 2007 and 2021 for primary prevention of SCD in two academic hospitals was performed. For each patient, a raw 12-lead, 10-s ECG was obtained within 90 days before ICD implantation, and clinical details were collected. Supervised ML models were trained and validated on a development cohort (n = 550) from Hospital A to predict ICD non-arrhythmic mortality at three-year follow-up (i.e. mortality without prior appropriate ICD-therapy). Model performance was evaluated on an external patient cohort from Hospital B (n = 460). At three-year follow-up, 16.0% of patients had died, with 72.8% meeting criteria for non-arrhythmic mortality. Extreme gradient boosting models identified patients with non-arrhythmic mortality with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.90 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.80-1.00] during internal validation. In the external cohort, the AUROC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.84).ConclusionsML models combining ECG time-series features and clinical variables were able to predict non-arrhythmic mortality within three years after device implantation in a primary prevention population, with robust performance in an independent cohort.
| S-EPMC10516624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Methods17 physicians, experienced in transvenous lead removal, performed a lead extraction manoeuvre of an ICD lead on a torso phantom. They were advised to stop traction only when further traction would be considered as harmful to the patient or when--based on their experience--a change in the extraction strategy was indicated. Traction forces were recorded with a digital precision gauge.ResultsMedian traction forces on the endocardium were 10.9 N (range from 3.0 N to 24.7 N and interquartile range from 7.9 to 15.3). Forces applied to the proximal end were estimated to be 10% higher than those measured at the tip of the lead due to a friction loss.ConclusionA traction force of around 11 N is typically exerted during standard transvenous extraction of ICD leads. A traction threshold for a safe procedure derived from a pool of experienced extractionists may be helpful for the development of required adequate simulator trainings.
| S-EPMC4055293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV ICD) provide life-saving therapy for millions of patients worldwide. However, they are susceptible to several potential short- and long- term complications including cardiac perforation and pneumothorax, lead dislodgement, venous obstruction, and infection. The extravascular ICD system's novel design and substernal implant approach avoids the risks associated with TV ICDs while still providing pacing features and similar generator size to TV ICDs.Study designThe EV ICD pivotal study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, nonrandomized, premarket clinical study designed to examine the safety and acute efficacy of the system. This study will enroll up to 400 patients with a Class I or IIa indication for implantation of an ICD. Implanted subjects will be followed up to approximately 3.5 years, depending on when the patient is enrolled.ObjectiveThe clinical trial is designed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of the EV ICD system in human use. The safety endpoint is freedom from major complications, while the efficacy endpoint is defibrillation success. Both endpoints will be assessed against prespecified criteria. Additionally, this study will evaluate antitachycardia pacing performance, electrical performance, extracardiac pacing sensation, asystole pacing, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, as well as a summary of adverse events.ConclusionThe EV ICD pivotal study is designed to provide clear evidence addressing the safety and efficacy performance of the EV ICD System.
| S-EPMC9290824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresImplantation of an ICD with or without CRT.ResultsA total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18).Conclusions and relevanceIn a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC5814986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrugada 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.HypothesisIn the present study, we described the data assimilated in a total of 11 studies, analyzing the outcome in 747 BrS patients receiving ICD.MethodsData were performed and analyzed after a systematic review of literature compiled from a thorough database search (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cinahl).ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionsICD therapy in BrS is associated with relevant ICD-related complications including a substantial risk of inappropriate shocks more frequently in symptomatic BrS patients.
| S-EPMC6788474 | biostudies-literature