Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion Haifa Israel.
Department of Cardiology, Hadassah Medical Center Jerusalem Israel.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Aug;12(15):e029126. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029126. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single- versus dual-chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary-prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in-hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in-hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual-chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In-hospital complication rates in the dual-chamber ICD and single-chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively (<0.001), driven by increased rates of pneumothorax/hemothorax (4.6% versus 3.4%; <0.001) and lead dislodgement (3.6% versus 2.3%; <0.001) in the dual-chamber ICD group. Multivariable analyses confirmed atrial lead addition as an independent predictor for "any complications" (odds ratio [OR], 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.2]), for pneumo/hemothorax (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.4]), and for lead dislodgement (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.6]). Conclusions Despite lack of evidence for clinical benefit, dual-chamber ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a majority of patients who do not have pacing indication. This practice is associated with increased risk of periprocedural complications. Avoidance of routine implantation of atrial leads will likely improve safety outcomes.
在植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)植入术用于预防心脏性猝死的一级预防中,对于没有起搏指征的患者,常规添加心房导线并没有在当代研究中显示出有益的效果。我们旨在研究这些患者中使用单腔和双腔 ICD 植入的使用情况和安全性。
我们使用国家住院患者样本数据库,在美国确定了在 2015 年至 2019 年间进行一级预防 ICD 植入的没有起搏指征的患者。分析了人口统计学和临床特征以及住院并发症。多变量逻辑回归用于确定住院并发症的预测因素。在研究期间,估计共有 15940 名患者接受 ICD 植入以预防心脏性猝死,其中 8860 名(55.6%)接受了双腔 ICD 植入。平均年龄为 64 岁,66%为男性。双腔 ICD 和单腔 ICD 组的住院并发症发生率分别为 12.8%和 10.7%(<0.001),这主要是由于双腔 ICD 组气胸/血胸(4.6%比 3.4%;<0.001)和导线脱位(3.6%比 2.3%;<0.001)发生率较高所致。多变量分析证实,心房导线的添加是“任何并发症”(比值比[OR],1.1[95%置信区间,1.0-1.2])、气胸/血胸(OR,1.1[95%置信区间,1.0-1.4])和导线脱位(OR,1.3[95%置信区间,1.1-1.6])的独立预测因素。
尽管缺乏临床获益的证据,但在大多数没有起搏指征的患者中,双腔 ICD 仍被植入用于预防心脏性猝死的一级预防。这种做法与围手术期并发症的风险增加有关。避免常规植入心房导线可能会改善安全性结果。