Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Circulation ; 115(18): 2382-9, 2007 May 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17470697

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators have relied on multiple ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction/defibrillation tests at implantation to ensure that the device can reliably sense, detect, and convert VF. The ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of Vulnerability: Risk Reduction Evaluation With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations) is the first large, multicenter, prospective trial comparing vulnerability safety margin testing versus defibrillation safety margin testing with a single VF induction/defibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 426 patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator underwent vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin screening at 14 J in a randomized order. After this, patients underwent confirmatory testing, which required 2 VF conversions without failure at < or = 21 J. Patients who passed their first 14-J and confirmatory tests, irrespective of the results of their second 14-J test, had their devices programmed to a 21-J shock for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF > or = 200 bpm and were followed up for 1 year. Of 420 patients who underwent 14-J vulnerability safety margin screening, 322 (76.7%) passed. Of these, 317 (98.4%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Of 416 patients who underwent 14-J defibrillation safety margin screening, 343 (82.5%) passed, and 338 (98.5%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Most clinical VT/VF episodes (32 of 37, or 86%) were terminated by the first shock, with no difference in first shock success. In all observed cases in which the first shock was unsuccessful, subsequent shocks terminated VT/VF without complication. CONCLUSIONS: Although spontaneous episodes of fast VT/VF were limited, there was no difference in the odds of first shock efficacy between groups. Screening with vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin may allow for inductionless or limited shock testing in most patients.


Asunto(s)
Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Desfibriladores Implantables , Estimulación Eléctrica , Fibrilación Ventricular/prevención & control , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Arritmias Cardíacas/complicaciones , Arritmias Cardíacas/tratamiento farmacológico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Terapia Combinada , Estudios Cruzados , Muerte Súbita Cardíaca/prevención & control , Desfibriladores Implantables/normas , Diseño de Equipo , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Proyectos de Investigación , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo , Método Simple Ciego , Procedimientos Innecesarios , Fibrilación Ventricular/diagnóstico , Fibrilación Ventricular/etiología , Fibrilación Ventricular/terapia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA