Primary prevention ICD generator at end of life: to replace or not to replace?

Q2 Medicine
S. Padala, K. Ellenbogen
{"title":"Primary prevention ICD generator at end of life: to replace or not to replace?","authors":"S. Padala, K. Ellenbogen","doi":"10.1136/HEARTASIA-2018-011167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone of therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤35%, irrespective of the aetiology.1–3 Current device guidelines and appropriate use criteria lay profound emphasis on the baseline left ventricular EF and New York Heart Association functional class in selecting appropriate candidates for primary prevention ICD implantation.4 5 However, these society guidelines do not provide guidance regarding a decision about replacing ICD generators, especially in patients who have not had any appropriate ICD therapies during the lifespan of the device and/or in whom the left ventricular EF improves to >35% at the time of reimplantation. Prior studies have shown that among primary prevention ICD recipients, about 75% do not experience any appropriate ICD therapies during the lifetime of their first ICD generator6 7 and about 25%–40% have improvements in their left ventricular EF >35% after ICD implantation.7–12 Furthermore, patients requiring generator replacements are older and have significantly greater comorbidities compared with the initial recipients.6 13 14 A significant proportion of ICD-related procedures in the USA, approximately 40%, involve ICD generator replacement based on the National Cardiovascular Data Registry data.6 Device replacements are associated with substantial healthcare costs and greater risk of major complications compared with initial implant.15 16 This raises a critical question as to whether the risk of sudden cardiac death warrants ICD generator replacement in patients who have not had any prior appropriate ICD therapies. Does improvement in left ventricular EF >35% lower the risk of sudden cardiac death negating the potential benefits of ICD?\n\nIn this issue of the Journal , Looi et al 17 report their single-centre outcomes in patients with heart failure after primary prevention ICD generator replacement. …","PeriodicalId":12858,"journal":{"name":"Heart Asia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/HEARTASIA-2018-011167","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTASIA-2018-011167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone of therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤35%, irrespective of the aetiology.1–3 Current device guidelines and appropriate use criteria lay profound emphasis on the baseline left ventricular EF and New York Heart Association functional class in selecting appropriate candidates for primary prevention ICD implantation.4 5 However, these society guidelines do not provide guidance regarding a decision about replacing ICD generators, especially in patients who have not had any appropriate ICD therapies during the lifespan of the device and/or in whom the left ventricular EF improves to >35% at the time of reimplantation. Prior studies have shown that among primary prevention ICD recipients, about 75% do not experience any appropriate ICD therapies during the lifetime of their first ICD generator6 7 and about 25%–40% have improvements in their left ventricular EF >35% after ICD implantation.7–12 Furthermore, patients requiring generator replacements are older and have significantly greater comorbidities compared with the initial recipients.6 13 14 A significant proportion of ICD-related procedures in the USA, approximately 40%, involve ICD generator replacement based on the National Cardiovascular Data Registry data.6 Device replacements are associated with substantial healthcare costs and greater risk of major complications compared with initial implant.15 16 This raises a critical question as to whether the risk of sudden cardiac death warrants ICD generator replacement in patients who have not had any prior appropriate ICD therapies. Does improvement in left ventricular EF >35% lower the risk of sudden cardiac death negating the potential benefits of ICD? In this issue of the Journal , Looi et al 17 report their single-centre outcomes in patients with heart failure after primary prevention ICD generator replacement. …
生命末期一级预防ICD发生器:更换还是不更换?
植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)是左心室射血分数(EF)≤35%的重度抑郁症患者心脏性猝死的一级预防治疗基石,无论病因如何。1-3当前的设备指南和适当的使用标准在选择一级预防ICD植入的适当候选者时,非常强调基线左心室EF和纽约心脏协会功能类别。4.5然而,这些协会指南并没有提供关于更换ICD发生器的决定的指导,尤其是在装置使用寿命内未接受任何适当ICD治疗的患者和/或在再次植入时左心室EF改善至>35%的患者中。先前的研究表明,在初级预防性ICD接受者中,约75%的人在其第一台ICD发生器的使用寿命内没有接受过任何适当的ICD治疗,约25%-40%的人在植入ICD后左心室EF改善>35%。7-12此外,与最初的接受者相比,需要更换发生器的患者年龄较大,合并症明显更大。6 13 14在美国,ICD相关手术的比例很大,约为40%,根据美国国家心血管数据注册中心的数据,需要更换ICD发生器。6与最初的植入相比,设备更换会带来巨大的医疗成本和更大的重大并发症风险。1516这就提出了一个关键问题,即心脏性猝死的风险是否需要在没有任何心脏病病史的患者中更换ICD发生器适当的ICD治疗。左心室EF改善>35%是否会降低心脏性猝死的风险,从而否定ICD的潜在益处?在本期杂志中,Looi等人17报道了他们在一级预防性ICD发生器置换术后心力衰竭患者的单中心结果…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Heart Asia
Heart Asia Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书