ICD harm and benefit: risk scores applied to the Swedish ICD-treated LQTS population

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Emilia Sundström, S. Jensen, Ulla-Britt Diamant, U. Wiklund, A. Rydberg
{"title":"ICD harm and benefit: risk scores applied to the Swedish ICD-treated LQTS population","authors":"Emilia Sundström, S. Jensen, Ulla-Britt Diamant, U. Wiklund, A. Rydberg","doi":"10.1080/14017431.2022.2060524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives. The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients is essential in high-risk patients. However, it is sometimes used in patients without high-risk profiles for whom the expected benefit may be lower than the risk of ICD harm. Here, we evaluated ICD benefit and harm by assessing risk according to risk scores and pre-ICD clinical characteristics. Design. We studied 109 Swedish LQTS patients drawn from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry with data collected from medical records. In addition to clinical characteristics, we used two risk scores to assess pre-ICD risk, and evaluated ICD benefit and harm. Results. Twenty percent of all patients received ≥1 appropriate shock with a first appropriate shock incidence rate of 4.3 per 100 person-years. A long QTc (≥550 ms) and double mutations were significantly associated with appropriate shock. Low risk scores among patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest were not significantly associated with low risk of first appropriate shock. The incidence rates of a first inappropriate shock and first complication were 3.0 and 7.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Conclusion. Our findings on ICD harm emphasize the importance of careful individual pre-ICD consideration. When we applied two risk scores to patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest, we could not validate their ability to identify patients with low risk of appropriate shocks and patients who were assessed as having a low risk still received appropriate shocks. This further supports the complexity of risk stratification and the difficulty of using risk scores.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14017431.2022.2060524","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objectives. The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients is essential in high-risk patients. However, it is sometimes used in patients without high-risk profiles for whom the expected benefit may be lower than the risk of ICD harm. Here, we evaluated ICD benefit and harm by assessing risk according to risk scores and pre-ICD clinical characteristics. Design. We studied 109 Swedish LQTS patients drawn from the Swedish ICD and Pacemaker Registry with data collected from medical records. In addition to clinical characteristics, we used two risk scores to assess pre-ICD risk, and evaluated ICD benefit and harm. Results. Twenty percent of all patients received ≥1 appropriate shock with a first appropriate shock incidence rate of 4.3 per 100 person-years. A long QTc (≥550 ms) and double mutations were significantly associated with appropriate shock. Low risk scores among patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest were not significantly associated with low risk of first appropriate shock. The incidence rates of a first inappropriate shock and first complication were 3.0 and 7.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Conclusion. Our findings on ICD harm emphasize the importance of careful individual pre-ICD consideration. When we applied two risk scores to patients without pre-ICD aborted cardiac arrest, we could not validate their ability to identify patients with low risk of appropriate shocks and patients who were assessed as having a low risk still received appropriate shocks. This further supports the complexity of risk stratification and the difficulty of using risk scores.
ICD的危害和益处:应用于瑞典ICD治疗的LQTS人群的风险评分
抽象的目标。在高风险的长QT综合征(LQTS)患者中使用植入式心律转复除颤器(ICDs)是必不可少的。然而,它有时用于没有高风险的患者,其预期获益可能低于ICD危害的风险。在这里,我们通过评估风险评分和ICD前的临床特征来评估ICD的利弊。设计。我们研究了109名瑞典LQTS患者,这些患者来自瑞典ICD和起搏器登记处,数据来自医疗记录。除了临床特征外,我们还使用两种风险评分来评估ICD前的风险,并评估ICD的益处和危害。结果。20%的患者接受≥1次适当休克,第一次适当休克发生率为每100人年4.3次。较长的QTc(≥550 ms)和双突变与适当的休克显著相关。无icd前心脏骤停流产患者的低风险评分与首次适当休克的低风险无显著相关性。首次不适宜性休克和首次并发症的发生率分别为3.0和7.6 / 100人年。结论。我们关于ICD危害的研究结果强调了仔细考虑ICD前个体的重要性。当我们将两个风险评分应用于没有icd前心脏骤停的患者时,我们无法验证他们识别低风险适当电击患者和低风险仍接受适当电击的患者的能力。这进一步支持了风险分层的复杂性和使用风险评分的难度。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信