Guidelines for Risks and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death (JCS 2010) - Digest Version -

Group, JCS Joint Working

doi:10.1253/circj.cj-88-0022

Cited by 29 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 179 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Primary prevention of SCD refers to the use of ICDs in individuals who are at risk for, but have not yet had an episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary prevention refers to prevention of SCD in patients who survived a prior sudden cardiac arrest or sustained VT [11] , [12] . Primary prevention indications for ICD therapy were defined as (1) coronary artery disease (CAD), non-sustained VT, LVEF <40%, and inducible sustained VT/VF; (2) CAD, prior myocardial infarction, and LVEF <30%; or (3) other (CAD, non-sustained VT, EF ≥40%, and inducible VT/VF).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of primary and secondary prevention indications on anxiety about the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Rahmawati

Chishaki

Ohkusa

et al. 2015

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been established for primary and secondary prevention of fatal arrhythmias. However, little is known about the influence of ICD indications on quality of life (QOL) and psychological disturbances. This study aimed to examine whether there were differences in QOL and psychological distress in patients that have an ICD for primary or secondary prevention of fatal arrhythmias.MethodsA multicenter survey of 179 consecutive outpatients (29.1% primary prevention) with ICD implantations completed the Short Form-8 (SF-8), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Worries about ICD (WAICD).ResultsPatients with an ICD for primary prevention had a higher trait anxiety score and worries about ICD score than patients with an ICD for secondary prevention (41.7±12.4 vs. 34.7±12.3, p=0.001 and 39.6±18.0 vs. 30.0±18.9, p=0.002, respectively), even after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. In multivariable analysis of variance, primary prevention ICD recipients reported a poorer QOL on the vitality subscale of the SF-8.ConclusionsIn our study population, which mostly consisted of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I and II subjects, primary prevention ICD recipients were more prone to experience worries about their ICD, anxiety, and a poorer QOL compared to secondary prevention ICD recipients. In clinical practice, primary prevention ICD patients should be closely monitored. If warranted, they should be offered psychological intervention, as anxiety and low QOL were predictors of mortality.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of primary and secondary prevention indications on anxiety about the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Rahmawati

Chishaki

Ohkusa

et al. 2015

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ischemic heart disease is the most common structural heart disease of VT in the United States and European countries, whereas various nonischemic heart diseases (including dilated, hypertrophic or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, etc.) account for a large part in Japanese patients 15 . In this subanalysis, 73% of the patients (62/85) were various nonischemic heart diseases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In the 85 patients, 45 patients experienced multiple episodes and the other 40 patients had a single episode of ATP therapy for fast VT. Average number of the fast VT episodes in each patient was 2.4 ± 2.9 1‐22 times. ATP successfully terminated 151 of the 202 fast VT episodes (74.8%) in total.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐by‐patient basis anti‐tachycardia pacing for fast ventricular tachycardia with structural heart diseases

Chinushi¹,

Furushima²,

Saitoh³

et al. 2020

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Anti‐tachycardia pacing (ATP) delivered from an implantable device is an important tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). But its real‐world efficacy for fast VT has not been fully studied. Methods Using the database of Nippon‐storm study, effect of patient‐by‐patient basis ATP programming for fast VT (≥188 bpm) was assessed for the patients with structural heart diseases. Fast VTs were divided into three groups depending on heart rate (HR); Group A was 188–209 bpm, and Group‐B and Group‐C were 210‐239 bpm and ≥240 bpm, respectively. Results During a median follow‐up of 28 months, 202 fast VT episodes (209 ± 19 bpm) were demonstrated in the 85 patients. ATP terminated 151 of the 202 episodes (74.8%) in total. The success rate of the ATP was not different among the three groups: 73.3% in Group A, 80.6% in Group B, and 66.7% in Group C. ATP success rate of >50% and >70% was 77.6% and 64.7% of the patients, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly higher in the patients with rather than without successful ATP therapy, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that LVEF of 23% was the optimal cut‐off value. ATP was less effective in patients taking amiodarone, but etiology of the structural heart diseases, indication of the device implantation, and all Electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters were not useful predictors for successful ATP therapy. Conclusions ATP highly terminated fast VT with wide HR ranges in patients with structural heart diseases, and should be considered as the first‐line therapy for fast VT except for patients with very low LVEF.

show abstract

“…Fragmented wide‐QRS (f‐wQRS) >120 ms as described above with the additional presence of two or more notches in the R or S wave were also included (Das et al, 2009 ). Primary prevention indication, that is, reduced LVEF ≤40% with no previous history of sustained VA, with or without an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in situ, and with either ischemic (ICM) and/or non‐ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (JCS Joint Working Group, 2012 ). Studies that included secondary prevention patients that had documented sustained VA, or a history of unexplained loss of consciousness with or without an ICD/CRT in situ, were included if primary prevention patients made up at least 70% of the total study population, which is representative of the current ICD population seen clinically (Kremers et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragmented QRS is associated with ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Engstrom

Dobson

et al. 2021

Noninvasive Electrocardiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Many primary prevention heart failure (HF) patients with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) rarely experience life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VA). New strategies are required to identify patients most at risk of VA and sudden cardiac death who would benefit from an ICD. One potential method is the detection of fragmented QRS (fQRS) on the electrocardiogram. The aim was to assess the predictive capacity of fQRS for VA and mortality in ischemic (ICM) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) primary prevention HF patients. Methods and Results:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining fQRS in HF patients with or without an ICD who met primary prevention indications with reduced ejection fraction ≤40%. Outcome measures were VA (or appropriate ICD therapy) and all-cause mortality. Ten studies involving 3885 patients were included for analysis. Most patients were male with non-fQRS patients being significantly younger (−1.5[−2.66, −0.42], p = .03). Diabetes was more likely in fQRS patients (1.12[1.01, 1.25], p = .03) while non-fQRS patients were 28% more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (0.82[0.67,1.00], p = .05). Ventricular arrhythmias were significantly 1.5 times more likely in patients with fQRS (1.51[1.02, 2.25], p = .04). HF patients were 1.7 times more likely to die of any cause if fQRS was present (1.68[1.13, 2.52], p = .01). NICM patients with fQRS have a significant 2.6-fold increased incidence of death compared with ICM patients (2.55[1.63, 3.98], p < .0001). Conclusion:fQRS is associated with VA and all-cause mortality and may be a novel marker in the risk stratification of primary prevention HF patients indicated for ICD implantation.

show abstract

Guidelines for Risks and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death (JCS 2010) - Digest Version -

Cited by 29 publications

References 179 publications

Influence of primary and secondary prevention indications on anxiety about the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Influence of primary and secondary prevention indications on anxiety about the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator

Patient‐by‐patient basis anti‐tachycardia pacing for fast ventricular tachycardia with structural heart diseases

Fragmented QRS is associated with ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About