Crandall B G, Morris C D, Cutler J E, Kudenchuk P J, Peterson J L, Liem L B, Broudy D R, Greene H L, Halperin B D, McAnulty J H
Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Apr;21(5):1186-92. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90244-u.
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no ventricular arrhythmias can be induced with programmed electrical stimulation.
Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom ventricular arrhythmias cannot be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remain at risk for recurrence of serious arrhythmias. Optimal protection to prevent sudden death in these patients is uncertain. This study compares survival in the subset of survivors of sudden cardiac death with that of patients treated with or without an ICD.
A retrospective study was performed on 194 consecutive survivors of primary sudden death who had < or = 6 beats of ventricular tachycardia induced with programmed electrical stimulation with at least three extrastimuli. Ninety-nine patients received an ICD and 95 did not.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in presenting rhythm, number of prior myocardial infarctions or use of antiarrhythmic agents. Patients treated with an ICD were younger (55 +/- 16 vs. 59 +/- 11 years, p = 0.03) and had a lesser incidence of coronary artery disease (48% vs. 63%, p = 0.04) and a lower ejection fraction (0.43 +/- 0.16 vs. 0.48 +/- 0.18, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the groups in the use of revascularization procedures or antiarrhythmic agents after the sudden cardiac death. Patients treated with an ICD had an improvement in sudden cardiac death-free survival (p = 0.04) but the overall survival rate did not differ from that of the patients not so treated (p = 0.91). A multivariate regression analysis that adjusted for the observed differences between the groups did not alter these results.
Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no arrhythmias could be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remained at risk for arrhythmia recurrence. Although the proportion of deaths attributed to arrhythmias was lower in the patients treated with an ICD, this therapy did not significantly improve overall survival.
本研究旨在确定植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗对经程控电刺激不能诱发室性心律失常的心脏性猝死幸存者的疗效。
经程控电刺激不能诱发室性心律失常的心脏性猝死幸存者仍有严重心律失常复发的风险。预防这些患者心脏性猝死的最佳保护措施尚不确定。本研究比较了心脏性猝死幸存者亚组与接受或未接受ICD治疗患者的生存率。
对194例原发性心脏性猝死的连续幸存者进行回顾性研究,这些患者经程控电刺激至少给予3次额外刺激后诱发的室性心动过速≤6次搏动。99例患者接受了ICD治疗,95例未接受。
两组在呈现的心律、既往心肌梗死次数或抗心律失常药物使用方面无显著差异。接受ICD治疗的患者更年轻(55±16岁 vs. 59±11岁,p = 0.03),冠心病发病率更低(48% vs. 63%,p = 0.04),射血分数更低(0.43±0.16 vs. 0.48±0.18,p = 0.04)。心脏性猝死发生后,两组在血运重建术或抗心律失常药物使用方面无显著差异。接受ICD治疗的患者无心脏性猝死生存率有所改善(p = 0.04),但总生存率与未接受该治疗的患者无差异(p = 0.91)。对两组间观察到的差异进行校正的多因素回归分析并未改变这些结果。
经程控电刺激不能诱发心律失常的心脏性猝死幸存者仍有心律失常复发的风险。尽管接受ICD治疗的患者中因心律失常导致的死亡比例较低,但该治疗并未显著提高总生存率。