Mortality risk score in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients with non-ischaemic or ischaemic heart disease

Borleffs, C. Jan Willem; Welsenes, Guido H. van; Bommel, Rutger J. van; Velde, Enno T. van der; Bax, Jeroen J.; Erven, Lieselot van; Putter, Hein; Bom, Johanna G. van der; Rosendaal, Frits R.; Schalij, Martin J.

doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp497

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different factors were associated with death in the different subpopulations. The risk factors we found were comparable with other registries [42, 43]. In our study impaired renal function was the most important risk factor for mortality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBased on multiple large clinical trials conducted over the last decades guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have been evolving. The increase in primary prophylactic ICD implantations challenges us to be critical towards the indications in certain patient populations.MethodsWe retrospectively collected patient characteristics and rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shock and mortality of all patients who received an ICD in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) over the years 2006–2011.ResultsA total of 1075 patients were included in this analysis (74 % male, mean age 61 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30 ± 13 %); 61 % had a primary indication and 58 % had ischaemic heart disease. During a mean follow-up period of 31 ± 17 months, 227 of the patients (21 %) received appropriate ICD therapy (149 (14 %) patients received an appropriate ICD shock). Females, patients with a primary prophylactic indication and patients with non-ischaemic heart disease experienced significantly less ICD therapy. Only a few patients (54, 5 %) received inappropriate ICD therapy; 33 (3 %) patients received an inappropriate ICD shock. Fifty-five patients died within one year after ICD implantation and were therefore, in retrospect, not eligible for ICD implantation.ConclusionOur study confirms the benefit of ICD implantation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, certain patients experience less benefit than others. A more patient-tailored risk stratification based on electrophysiological parameters would be lucrative to improve clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the frequency of shock episodes observed in this investigation was lower than that seen in Chagas disease patients receiving ICD therapy for secondary prevention of SCD [4][5][6]. This can account, at least in part, for the similarity of mortality rate observed in our study in comparison to that seen in non-Chagas cardiomyopathy patients [7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 38%

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with severe Chagas cardiomyopathy

Cardinalli-Neto

Nakazone

Grassi

et al. 2011

International Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The risk of SCD increases with decline in systolic function in coronary heart disease, 66 non-genotyped DCM, 67 and genetic DCM. 68 There is strong evidence to support the use of ICD therapy for primary prevention in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction.…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Lakdawala

Winterfield

Funke

2013

Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mortality risk score in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients with non-ischaemic or ischaemic heart disease

Abstract: Utilization of an easily applicable baseline risk score can create an individual patient-tailored estimation on mortality risk to aid clinicians in daily practice.

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with severe Chagas cardiomyopathy

Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About