Suppr超能文献

植入式心脏除颤器患者的电风暴:发生率、特征及预防性治疗:一项随机试验的见解

Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial.

作者信息

Hohnloser Stefan H, Al-Khalidi Hussein R, Pratt Craig M, Brum Jose M, Tatla Daljit S, Tchou Patrick, Dorian Paul

机构信息

Division of Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiology, J.W. Goethe-University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.

出版信息

Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(24):3027-32. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl276. Epub 2006 Oct 18.

Abstract

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSION

ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估“电风暴”(ES)的发生率、特征及临床后果。

方法与结果

本研究是对SHIELD进行的一项前瞻性设计的二次分析;SHIELD是一项关于阿齐利特抑制室性心动过速/心室颤动(VT/VF)导致植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗的随机试验。对ICD治疗进行系统且严格的随访以及盲法判定,从而识别出所有的电风暴(24小时内导致ICD治疗的≥3次独立VT/VF发作)。在633名ICD接受者中,148名(23%)在1年随访期间经历了至少一次电风暴。未发现电风暴的临床预测因素。频繁VT发作占所有电风暴的91%,其余为单纯VF或VT加VF两者皆有。与孤立VT/VF患者相比,电风暴导致心律失常相关住院增加3.1倍(95%CI 2.3 - 4.3;P<0.0001),与无VT/VF患者相比增加10.2倍(95%CI 6.4 - 16.3;P<0.0001)。与安慰剂相比,阿齐利特(75和125毫克/天)分别使复发性电风暴风险降低37%(HR = 0.63,95%CI 0.35 - 1.11,P = 0.11)和55%(HR = 0.45,95%CI 0.23 - 0.87,P = 0.018)。然而,两种剂量(75和125毫克)的阿齐利特使首次电风暴发生时间的缩短均未达到统计学显著性(HR = 0.82,95%CI 0.56 - 1.19,P = 0.29和HR = 0.69,95%CI 0.46 - 1.04,P = 0.07)。

结论

电风暴在ICD接受者中很常见且不可预测,并且是住院的有力预测因素。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验