Need for pacing in patients who qualify for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Clinical implications for the subcutaneous ICD.

Autor: Kutyifa V; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Rosero SZ; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., McNitt S; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Polonsky B; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Brown MW; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Zareba W; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA., Goldenberg I; Heart Research Follow-Up Program, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc [Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol] 2020 Jul; Vol. 25 (4), pp. e12744. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 29.
DOI: 10.1111/anec.12744
Abstrakt: Background: Implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is spreading and has been shown to be safe and effective; however, it does not provide brady-pacing. Currently, data on the need for brady-pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with ICD indication are limited.
Methods: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II enrolled post-MI patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤ 35%), randomized to either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or conventional medical therapy. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox models were performed to assess the incidence and predictors of pacemaker (PM), or CRT implantation in the conventional arm of MADIT-II, after excluding 32 patients (6.5%) with a previously implanted PM.
Results: During the median follow-up of 20 months, 24 of 458 patients (5.2%) were implanted with a PM or a CRT (19 PM, 5 CRT). Symptomatic sinus bradycardia was the primary indication for PM implantation (n = 9, 37%), followed by AV block (n = 5, 21%), tachy-brady syndrome (n = 4, 17%), and carotid sinus hypersensitivity (n = 1, 4%). Baseline PR interval >200 ms (HR = 3.07, 95% CI: 1.24-7.57, p = .02), and CABG before enrollment (HR = 6.88, 95% CI: 1.58-29.84, p = .01) predicted subsequent PM/CRT implantation. Patients with PM/CRT implantation had a significantly higher risk for heart failure (HR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.38-5.14, p = .003), but no increased mortality risk (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.46-2.46, p = .89).
Conclusion: The short-term need for ventricular pacing or CRT implantation in patients with MADIT-II ICD indication was low, especially in those with a normal baseline PR interval, and such patients are appropriate candidates for the subcutaneous ICD.
(© 2020 The Authors. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: