ICD implantation can be performed without epicardial patches or transvenous high-energy leads in this population, using individualized techniques. This will allow ICD use in patients who have intracardiac shunting or are deemed too small for transvenous ICD leads. The long-term outcome and possible complications are as yet unknown in this population, and they should be monitored closely with follow-up DFTs.
Background: Patients resuscitated from ventricular tachyarrhythmias benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) as opposed to medical treatment. Patients with increased QRS duration receiving an ICD in the presence of heart failure are at greatest risk of cardiac death and benefit most from ICD therapy. Objective: To determine whether an increased QRS duration predicts cardiac mortality in ICD recipients. Design: Consecutive patients with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class III were grouped according to QRS duration (< 150 ms, n = 139, group 1; v > 150 ms, n = 26, group 2) and followed up for (mean (SD)) 23 (20) months. Patients: 165 patients were studied (80% men, 20% women); 73% had coronary artery disease and 18% had dilated cardiomyopathy. Their mean age was 62 (10) years and mean ejection fraction (EF) was 33 (14)%. They presented either with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Main outcome measures: Overall and cardiac mortality; recurrence rates of VT, fast VT, or VF. Results: Mean left ventricular EF did not differ between group 1 (33 (13)%) and group 2 (31 (15)%). Forty patients died (34 cardiac deaths). There was no difference in survival between patients with EF > 35% and < 35%. Cardiac mortality was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (31.3% at 12 months and 46.6% at 24 months, v 9.5% at 12 months and 18.2% at 24 months, respectively; p = 0.04). The recurrence rate of VT was similar in both groups. Conclusions: Within subgroups at highest risk of cardiac death, QRS duration-a simple non-invasive index-predicts outcome in ICD recipients in the presence of heart failure.
ICDs are the therapy of choice in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Mortality, morbidity, and complication rates including appropriate and inappropriate therapies are unknown when ICDs are used in routine medical care and not in well-defined patients included in multicenter trials. Therefore, the data of 3,344 patients (61.1 +/- 12.1 years; 80.2% men; CAD 64.6%, dilated cardiomyopathy 18.9%; NYHA Class I-III: 19.1%, 54.3%, 20.1%, respectively; LVEF > 0.50: 0.234, LVEF 0.30-0.50: 0.472, LVEF < 0.30: 0.293, respectively) implanted in 62 German hospitals between January 1998 and October 2000 were prospectively collected and analyzed as a part of the European Registry of Implantable Defibrillators (EURID Germany). The 1-year survival rate was 93.5%. Patients in NYHA Class III and aLVEF < 0.30 had a lower survival rate than patients in NYHA Class I and a preserved LVEF (0.852 vs 0.975,P = 0.0001). Including the 1-year follow-up, 49.5% of patients had an intervention by the ICD, 39.8% had appropriate ICD therapies, 16.2% had inappropriate therapies. Overall, 1,691 hospital readmissions were recorded. The main causes for hospital readmissions were ventricular arrhythmias (61.3%) and congestive heart failure symptoms (12.9%). Thus, demographic data and mortality of patients treated with an ICD in conditions of standard medical care seems to be comparable and based on, or congruent with, the large secondary preventions trials. When ICDs are used in standard medical care, the 1-year survival rate is high, especially in patients with NYHA Class I and preserved LVEF. However, nearly half of all patients suffer from ICD intervention.
In children in whom endocardial, right ventricular placement of a defibrillation lead is precluded, defibrillation is possible and safe between an abdominally placed "active can" ICD device and a subcutaneous array lead. This approach may avoid a thoracotomy in children with no possibility for transvenous ICD placement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.