Berenbom Loren D, Weiford Brian C, Vacek James L, Emert Martin P, Hall W Jackson, Andrews Mark L, McNitt Scott, Zareba Wojciech, Moss Arthur J
Mid-America Cardiology and the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Kansas Hospital, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA.
Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2005 Oct;10(4):429-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2005.00063.x.
We sought to evaluate the influence of single- versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) on the occurrence of heart failure and mortality as well as appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II).
In MADIT-II, ICD therapy in patients with a prior myocardial infarction and ejection fraction < or =0.30 was associated with a 31% reduction in risk of mortality when compared to conventionally treated patients. An unexpected finding was an increased occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure in the ICD group.
Data from 717 patients randomized to ICD therapy with single- or dual-chamber pacing devices in MADIT-II were retrospectively analyzed. Endpoints selected for analysis included death from any cause, new or worsening heart failure requiring hospitalization, death or heart failure, appropriate therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), and inappropriate ICD therapy for atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia.
A total of 404 single-chamber ICDs (S-ICDs) and 313 dual-chamber ICDs (D-ICDs) were implanted. Patients receiving D-ICDs were at a higher risk at baseline than those receiving S-ICDs, with older age, higher NYHA class, more frequent prior CABG, wider QRS complex, more LBBB, higher BUN level, a history of more atrial arrhythmias requiring treatment, and a longer time interval from their index myocardial infarction to enrollment. While there was a trend toward an increase in adverse outcomes in the D-ICD group, no statistically significant differences in heart failure or mortality were observed between S-ICD versus D-ICD groups.
Patients with D-ICDs had a nonsignificant trend toward higher mortality and heart failure rates than patients with S-ICDs.
我们试图在多中心自动除颤器植入试验II(MADIT-II)中评估单腔与双腔植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)对心力衰竭发生率、死亡率以及ICD恰当和不恰当治疗的影响。
在MADIT-II中,与接受传统治疗的患者相比,既往有心肌梗死且射血分数≤0.30的患者接受ICD治疗可使死亡风险降低31%。一个意外发现是ICD组因心力衰竭住院的发生率增加。
对MADIT-II中717例随机接受单腔或双腔起搏装置ICD治疗的患者数据进行回顾性分析。选择进行分析的终点包括任何原因导致的死亡、因新的或恶化的心力衰竭需要住院治疗、死亡或心力衰竭、对室性心动过速(VT)或室性颤动(VF)的恰当治疗以及对心房颤动或室上性心动过速的不恰当ICD治疗。
共植入404台单腔ICD(S-ICD)和313台双腔ICD(D-ICD)。接受D-ICD的患者在基线时比接受S-ICD的患者风险更高,年龄更大、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级更高、既往冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)更频繁、QRS波群更宽、左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)更多、血尿素氮(BUN)水平更高、有更多需要治疗的房性心律失常病史,且从首次心肌梗死到入组的时间间隔更长。虽然D-ICD组不良结局有增加的趋势,但S-ICD组与D-ICD组在心力衰竭或死亡率方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。
与单腔ICD患者相比,双腔ICD患者死亡率和心力衰竭发生率有不显著的升高趋势。