Kawata Hiro, Hirai Taishi, Doukas Demetrios, Hirai Rie, Steinbrunner Jenni, Wilson John, Noda Takashi, Hsu Jonathan, Krummen David, Feld Gregory, Wilber David, Santucci Peter, Birgersdotter-Green Ulrika
Department of Medicine, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Jun;27(6):724-9. doi: 10.1111/jce.12961. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
At the time of generator replacement, after ICD implantation for primary prevention, many patients may no longer meet implantation criteria. We investigated the occurrence of ICD therapy after generator replacement in patients initially implanted ICD for primary prevention.
Patients from 3 hospitals undergoing ICD generator replacement, who were initially implanted for primary prevention, were retrospectively evaluated for occurrence of appropriate ICD therapy after generator replacement. Patients were categorized as to whether or not they had appropriate ICD therapy during their first battery life, and by their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before generator replacement.
Data from 168 patients were analyzed, with average follow-up after generator replacement of 41.2 ± 26.5 months. Seventy-six (45.2%) patients had ventricular arrhythmia episodes (>180 beats per minutes) and 63 (37.5%) received appropriate ICD therapy during the first battery life. Among 105 patients without ICD therapy before generator replacement, those with an LVEF ≤35% before ICD replacement had higher occurrence of ICD therapy after generator replacement than patients with an LVEF ≥36%. Patients who no longer met primary prevention ICD indications (no ICD therapy and LVEF ≥36% before generator replacement) showed a lower risk for ICD therapy after generator replacement (11.6% over 5-year follow-up).
In patients without ICD therapy before generator replacement, low LVEF (≤35%) contributed to future ICD therapy. In patients initially undergoing ICD implantation for primary prevention, history of ICD therapy during the first battery life and LVEF should be utilized for risk stratification at the time of generator replacement.
在因一级预防植入植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)后进行发生器更换时,许多患者可能不再符合植入标准。我们调查了最初因一级预防植入ICD的患者在发生器更换后ICD治疗的发生情况。
对来自3家医院接受ICD发生器更换的患者进行回顾性评估,这些患者最初是因一级预防而植入ICD的。在发生器更换后,根据患者在首个电池寿命期间是否接受了适当的ICD治疗以及更换发生器前的左心室射血分数(LVEF)进行分类。
分析了168例患者的数据,发生器更换后的平均随访时间为41.2±26.5个月。76例(45.2%)患者出现室性心律失常发作(每分钟>180次心跳),63例(37.5%)在首个电池寿命期间接受了适当的ICD治疗。在更换发生器前未接受ICD治疗的105例患者中,ICD更换前LVEF≤35%的患者在更换发生器后接受ICD治疗的发生率高于LVEF≥36%的患者。那些不再符合一级预防ICD指征的患者(更换发生器前未接受ICD治疗且LVEF≥36%)在更换发生器后接受ICD治疗的风险较低(5年随访期间为11.6%)。
在更换发生器前未接受ICD治疗的患者中,低LVEF(≤35%)会导致未来接受ICD治疗。对于最初因一级预防而植入ICD的患者,在发生器更换时,应利用首个电池寿命期间的ICD治疗史和LVEF进行风险分层。