RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a public health problem. In most cases, it is the consequence of ventricular arrhythmias. The only treatment of proven effectiveness is the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). AIM: To describe indications for ICD implantation according to the underlying heart disease and report it's short and long-term results. METHODS: We report a retrospective and descriptive study involving 90 patients implanted with an ICD in our facility collected between January 2003 and December 2014. RESULTS: The average age of our population was 49 ± 15 years (14-76). A male predominance was noted (sex ratio: 6). Ischemic heart disease was the most common underlying heart disease found in 37% of cases. The average left ventricular ejection fraction was 43.5 ± 17.7%. A slight predominance of primary prevention was noted in our series (52%). Single, dual and triple chamber ICD were used in respectively 34%, 36% and 30% of cases. The use of triple chamber ICD was more frequent in cardiomyopathies and ischemic heart disease. Early complications were observed in 9 patients (10%). No deaths directly related to the ICD implantation procedure was observed in our series. The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (3-136). We recorded 14 deaths. The main cause of death was refractory heart failure. During follow-up, 16 patients (18%) received appropriate ICD shocks. The only predictor of appropriate therapies was the indication of ICD for secondary prevention (p=0,002). Twenty one patients (23%) had complications inherent to the implantation of ICD. The main complication was inappropriate shocks found in 11 patients (12%). The main cause of these shocks was supraventricular arrhythmias 68%). Ischemic heart disease (p = 0.001) and secondary prevention (p = 0.048) were significantly associated with the occurrence of inappropriate ICD shocks. The ICD was explanted after varying delays in 4 patients (4.4%). CONCLUSION: The results of our study were comparable to major ICD studies and registries particularly in terms of procedural, late complications and the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapies.
Assuntos
Morte Súbita Cardíaca/prevenção & controle , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Left main coronary artery disease is known as the highest risk lesion subset of ischemic heart disease. Several studies have shown a significant benefit following treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical treatment. As a result, surgery has been the standard of care for the revascularization of left main disease for a long time. However, with the remarkable improvements in interventional cardiology, percutaneous coronary intervention has become technically feasible and showed favorable clinical outcomes. AIM: We sought to evaluate trends in treatment strategies of left main coronary artery disease over time in Sahloul University Hospital and to compare patient's characteristics as well as early, mid-term and long-term adverse outcomes of each therapeutic option. METHODS: From 2005 to 2016, 260 patients with unprotected left main disease (defined as stenosis of at least 50%) were included. 109 patients underwent PCI (group 1), 102 patients underwent Surgery (group 2) and 49 patients were medically treated (group 3). Major cardiac and cerebrovascular events were defined as the composite of: mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and need for repeat revascularization. Event rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Over time, the proportion of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention rather than coronary artery bypass grafting increased substantially, whereas the proportion of patients who received medical therapy remained steady. Group 1 patients had more cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 0%, p=0,01) at presentation compared to group 2. More patients treated with surgery had multivessel disease (73% vs 40%; p <0.001), more distal left main bifurcation lesions (52.3% vs 73.5%; p=0.001) and higher SYNTAX scores (23.3±9.96 vs 32.5±8.7; p <0.001). All the other baseline variables were similar. At follow up, there were no differences, at the adjusted analysis, in the rate of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and the composite endpoint of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR: 1, 04; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.83; p=0.88). Compared to percutaneous coronary intervention group, group 2 has a higher all-cause mortality (p=0.017) driven exclusively by an elevated incidence of operative mortality (13.7% vs. 6.4%; HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.017 to 0.43; p=0.003). Nevertheless, long-term advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous coronary intervention was the less need for repeat revascularization (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.26 to 8.12; p=0.014). CONCLUSION: Our data show that revascularization therapy have evolved remarkably in the favor of percutaneous coronary intervention over the last decade. Angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft show comparable safety. However, the need for revascularization is more common after percutaneous treatment.
Assuntos
Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/terapia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/mortalidade , Estenose Coronária/mortalidade , Estenose Coronária/terapia , Feminino , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Reoperação/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Choque Cardiogênico/mortalidade , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Tunísia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Right ventricular apical pacing-related heart failure is reported in some patients after long-term pacing. The exact mechanism is not yet clear but may be related to left ventricular dyssynchrony induced by right ventricular apical pacing. Right ventricular septal pacing is thought to deteriorate left ventricular function less frequently because of a more normal left ventricular activation pattern. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 55-year-old Tunisian woman with preserved ventricular function, implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker for complete atrioventricular block. Right ventricular septal pacing induced a major ventricular dyssynchrony, severe left ventricular ejection fraction deterioration and symptoms of congestive heart failure. Upgrading to a biventricular device was associated with a decrease in the symptoms and the ventricular dyssynchrony, and an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing can induce reversible left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure secondary to left ventricular dyssynchrony. This complication remains an unpredictable complication of right ventricular septal pacing.