Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Am J Cardiol ; 211: 17-28, 2024 Jan 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37879381

RESUMEN

The current guidelines advocate prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for all patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with low left ventricular ejection fraction. Because many patients will never use their device, a score delineating subgroups with differential ICD benefit is crucial. We aimed to evaluate the MADIT-II-based Risk Stratification Score (MRSS) feasibility to delineate the ICD survival benefit in a nationwide registry of patients with HF with prophylactic ICDs. Accordingly, all Israeli patients with HF with prophylactic ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators were categorized into MRSS-based risk subgroups. The study end points included overall mortality, sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA), and a competing risk of VA (potential preventable arrhythmic death, where ICD could benefit survival) versus nonarrhythmic death. Potential ICD survival benefit was estimated by the area between these cumulative incidence curves. In 2,177 patients with HF implanted prophylactic device, 189 patients (8.7%) had VA and 316 (14.5%) died during a median follow-up of 2.9 years. The MRSS risk subgroups were significantly associated with overall mortality (p <0.001) and weakly with VA (p = 0.3). The competing risk analysis of VA versus nonarrhythmic death revealed a significantly shorter duration (p <0.001) and smaller magnitude of ICD survival benefit with increased risk subgroups, yielding an estimated 76, 60, 38, and 0 life days gained from prophylactic ICD implant during a 5-year follow-up for the MRSS low-, intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk subgroups, respectively (p for trend <0.05). In conclusion, MRSS use in a nationwide registry of patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, revealed subgroups with differing ICD survival benefit, suggesting it could help evaluate prophylactic ICD survival benefit.


Asunto(s)
Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Desfibriladores Implantables , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Humanos , Volumen Sistólico , Función Ventricular Izquierda , Factores de Riesgo , Arritmias Cardíacas/epidemiología , Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Medición de Riesgo , Sistema de Registros , Prevención Primaria , Muerte Súbita Cardíaca/epidemiología , Muerte Súbita Cardíaca/prevención & control
2.
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev ; 7(2): 135-142, 2018 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29967687

RESUMEN

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a cardiac disease caused by an inherited ion channelopathy associated with a propensity to develop ventricular fibrillation. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation is recommended in BrS, based on the clinical presentation in the presence of diagnostic ECG criteria. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation is not always indicated or sufficient in BrS, and is associated with a high device complication rate. Pharmacological therapy aimed at rebalancing the membrane action potential can prevent arrhythmogenesis in BrS. Quinidine, a class 1A antiarrhythmic drug with significant Ito blocking properties, is the most extensively used drug for the prevention of arrhythmias in BrS. The present review provides contemporary data gathered on all drugs effective in the therapy of BrS, and on ineffective or contraindicated antiarrhythmic drugs.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA