RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) is emerging as a suitable option for most ICD candidates, however some open issues regarding the sensing algorithm still remain. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the performance of the S-ICD sensing algorithm in patients hospitalized for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), before and after revascularization. METHODS: We performed a S-ICD automated screening on 75 patients, 21 hospitalized for STEMI, 23 for NSTE-ACS and 31 for CCS, before and after percutaneous revascularization, regardless their eligibility to ICD implantation. RESULTS: Patients did not differ in clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. Rates of screening pass were significantly lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (5% vs 56.7% vs 81% respectively, p < .0001). The viability of the primary vector was lower in STEMI patients compared to NSTE-ACS and CCS (33% vs 56% vs 71%, p .027 respectively). After revascularization, there were no more significant differences between groups. Pairing subjects at baseline and after revascularization, STEMI subjects percentages of screening success were respectively 5% and 81% (p < .001) and the rates of primary vector viability were 33% and 81% (p .002). STEMI was the only independent predictor of screening failure at multivariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 10.68 confidence interval 2.77-41.38, p = .001). CONCLUSION: The performance of the S-ICD and possible malfunction detections in the context of an acute ischemic event deserve further evaluation. Adequate patient selection and the development of dynamic device programming are warranted.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether echocardiography may help identify, among patients admitted with a suspect of non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), those with athero-thrombotic coronary artery disease (CAD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied consecutive patients admitted with a clinical suspect of first NSTEMI. Echocardiography was assessed within 24 hours from admission. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the results of coronary angiography: 1) patients with obstructive stenosis (≥ 50%) and/or images of thrombosis in one or more coronary arteries (CAD group); 2) patients with no evidence of obstructive coronary arteries (NOCAD group). RESULTS: Of 101 patients enrolled in the study, 53 (52.5%) showed obstructive CAD and 48 (47.5%) NOCAD. At echocardiographic examination, regional wall motion abnormalities were found in 52.8% of patients in the CAD group and 43.7% in the NOCAD group (p=0.43). Left ventricle ejection fraction was 56.4±6.8 vs. 54.7±9.8% (p=0.30) and wall motion score index was 1.16±0.26 vs. 1.21±0.32 (p=0.39) in the two groups, respectively. A multivariable logistic regression independent predictors of obstructive CAD included age, male gender, typical angina, diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that, in patients with acute chest pain and increased serum troponin T concentration, routine standard echocardiography does not significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy for the presence of obstructive CAD.