Outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients on hemodialysis
Autor: | Heath Saltzman, Steven P. Kutalek, Eduard Koman, Faiz A. Subzposh, Ashwani Gupta |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2016 |
Předmět: |
Male
medicine.medical_specialty medicine.medical_treatment 030232 urology & nephrology Prosthesis Implantation Comorbidity 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology End stage renal disease 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Renal Dialysis Risk Factors Physiology (medical) Internal medicine Prevalence medicine Humans Longitudinal Studies Renal Insufficiency Survival rate Retrospective Studies Heart Failure business.industry Retrospective cohort study Middle Aged Pennsylvania medicine.disease Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator Defibrillators Implantable Survival Rate Treatment Outcome Heart failure Cardiology Kidney Failure Chronic Female Hemodialysis Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business |
Zdroj: | Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 45:219-223 |
ISSN: | 1572-8595 1383-875X |
Popis: | Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) provides potential benefits in patients on hemodialysis (HD) by reducing the risk of blood stream infection and preserving vascular access sites. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of S-ICD in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on HD.All consecutive patients implanted with S-ICD between October 2012 and April 2015 at our high-volume center were included in this retrospective, single-center study. Baseline demographics, procedural details, and short- as well as long-term outcomes were compared between patients on HD and not on HD.A total of 86 S-ICDs were implanted at our institution during the study period. Eighteen (21%) patients were on HD at the time of implant. HD patients were more likely to be implanted for secondary prevention. There was no statistically significant difference in procedural complications between the two groups. HD patients had a longer duration hospital stay after implant (3.6 ± 5.14 vs. 1.69 ± 2.29 days, p = 0.021). During a mean follow-up of 205 ± 208 days in the HD cohort and 242 ± 238 days in the non-HD cohort (p = 0.268), there was no device or blood stream infection in the HD group, compared with five device infections in the non-HD group. The incidence of inappropriate shocks was similar in both groups. All appropriate shocks were successful in terminating ventricular tachyarrhythmias in both groups. Patients on hemodialysis had worse inpatient as well as long-term mortality after S-ICD implant, compared with non-HD patients.Our study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of S-ICD in patients on HD. Despite representing a sicker patient population, HD patients implanted with S-ICD had similar procedural outcomes and inappropriate shocks. There was no device or blood stream-related infection in HD patients. All appropriate shocks for ventricular arrhythmias in HD patients were successful. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |