Cardiology-Cardiac Arrhythmias Management Department, Clinique Pasteur, 45 avenue de Lombez, 31076 Toulouse, France.
Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Disease and Electrotherapy, Silesian Medical University, Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Curie-Sklodowskiej Str 9, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland.
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(5):887-892. doi: 10.1093/europace/euy009.
The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey is to provide an overview of the factors influencing patient selection for the implantation of a particular type of device: subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) or transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD), across a broad range of tertiary European centres. A specially designed electronic questionnaire was sent via the internet to tertiary reference centres routinely implanting both TV-ICDs and S-ICDs. These centres were asked to prospectively include and fill-in this questionnaire for all consecutive patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (both TV-ICD and S-ICD) during an 8-week period of time. Questions concerned standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing one or the other type of ICD for each patient. In total 20 centres participated at the survey and entered individual data from a total of 429 consecutive patients (men 76.3%). Indication of implantation was primary prevention for 73% of the patients. Implanted devices were distributed between cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) ones with back-up defibrillators (31.6%), single-chamber TV-ICD (29.5%), S-ICD (19.8%), and dual-chamber TV-ICD (19.1%).The rate of S-ICD shows the current penetration of this treatment in everyday practice. Main reasons favouring the use of an S-ICD were young age (66.7%), anticipated (38.9%) or previous (9.3%) lead-related complications, and elevated risk (18.5%) or previous device infection (7.4%). Importantly, the choice for this device was also based on patient preference (16.7%) or active lifestyle (13%). The three most frequent reasons for the use of a transvenous device were the option of antitachycardia pacing (43.2%), and logically, the current or expected need for CRT (40%) or for permanent pacing (39.6%). This snapshot survey with individual patient data provides a contemporary insight into ICD implantation and management in the European electrophysiology tertiary centres. It also helps to better understand the reasons which condition the choice between a S-ICD and a traditional TV-ICD. Finally, it gives a picture of the distribution of various types of ICD, few years after the introduction of the S-ICD in the Europe.
这项欧洲心律协会(EHRA)前瞻性快照调查的目的是提供一个广泛的欧洲三级中心的影响患者选择特定类型设备植入的因素概述:皮下植入式心律转复除颤器(S-ICD)或经静脉植入式心律转复除颤器(TV-ICD)。专门设计的电子问卷通过互联网发送给常规植入 TV-ICD 和 S-ICD 的三级参考中心。这些中心被要求前瞻性地为在 8 周时间内植入植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)的所有连续患者填写并填写这份问卷。问题涉及护理标准和用于患者管理的政策,特别关注为每个患者选择一种或另一种 ICD 的原因。共有 20 个中心参与了这项调查,并从总共 429 名连续患者(男性 76.3%)中输入了个人数据。植入的指征是 73%的患者为一级预防。植入的设备分布在心脏再同步治疗(CRT)加后备除颤器(31.6%)、单腔 TV-ICD(29.5%)、S-ICD(19.8%)和双腔 TV-ICD(19.1%)。S-ICD 的植入率显示了这种治疗在日常实践中的当前渗透。支持使用 S-ICD 的主要原因是年轻(66.7%)、预期(38.9%)或以前(9.3%)的导线相关并发症,以及高风险(18.5%)或以前的设备感染(7.4%)。重要的是,对这种设备的选择也基于患者的偏好(16.7%)或积极的生活方式(13%)。选择经静脉装置的三个最常见的原因是抗心动过速起搏的选择(43.2%),逻辑上,目前或预期需要 CRT(40%)或永久起搏(39.6%)。这项带有个体患者数据的快照调查为欧洲三级电生理中心的 ICD 植入和管理提供了当代的深入了解。它还有助于更好地理解 S-ICD 和传统 TV-ICD 之间选择的条件。最后,它描绘了在欧洲引入 S-ICD 几年后各种类型 ICD 的分布情况。