Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator use for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 371-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mithilesh K. Das ◽  
Rajdeep Gaitonde ◽  
John M. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator

scholarly journals Patients’ decision making to accept or decline an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra L. Carroll ◽  
Patricia H. Strachan ◽  
Sonya de Laat ◽  
Lisa Schwartz ◽  
Heather M. Arthur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation for primary and secondary prevention: indications and outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (S1) ◽  
pp. S126-S131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. Pick ◽  
Anjan S. Batra
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Risk Event

AbstractImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators effectively reduce the rate of sudden cardiac death in children. Significant efforts have been made to better characterise the indications for their placement, and over the past two decades there has been a shift in their use from secondary to primary prevention. Primary prevention includes placement in patients thought to be at high risk of sudden cardiac death before the patient experiences any event. Secondary prevention includes placement after a high-risk event including sustained ventricular tachycardia or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Although liberal device implantation may be appealing even in patients having marginal indications, studies have shown high rates of adverse effects including inappropriate device discharges and the need for re-intervention because of hardware malfunction. The indications for placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, whether for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, vary based on cardiac pathology. This review will assist the provider in understanding the risks and benefits of device implantation in order to enhance the shared decision-making capacity of patients, families, and providers.

Abstract 10947: Longer and Faster Non-sustained Ventricular Tachycardia in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients Predicts for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shocks and Sudden Cardiac Death

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijia Wang ◽  
Zhesi Lian ◽  
Ethan Rowin ◽  
Martin Maron ◽  
Mark Link
Keyword(s):  
Ventricular Tachycardia ◽  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Sustained Ventricular Tachycardia ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator

Introduction: Non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) may be underestimated in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Its impact on the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in HCM is controversial. There is no distinction made in the guidelines as to the length or rate of NSVT as a risk marker for SCD. Hypothesis: NSVT may be nearly universal in HCM patients with high risk of SCD and not found because of the limited time frame of monitoring. NSVT may be associated with appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) shocks and SCD. Methods: A retrospective study of 181 HCM patients who had an ICD and were followed for at least 6 months from 2000 to 2013 at Tufts Medical Center was performed. The pre-operative evaluations as well as routine ICD follow up notes were reviewed. Results: ICD was implanted in 175 (96.7%) patients as primary prevention and in 6 (3.3%) patients as secondary prevention for SCD. Ninety six (53.0%) patients total had NSVT, including 48 (26.5%) before and 77 (42.5%) after ICD implantation. The agreement for detecting NSVT between Holter monitoring and ICD interrogation was poor (Kappa=0.18, p=0.054). Eighteen (18.75%) patients with NSVT and 6 (7.06%) patients without NSVT had appropriate ICD shocks or SCD (Figure 1). In multivariable analysis, NSVT was independently associated with appropriate ICD shocks and SCD (OR 3.69, 95%CI: 1.31 - 10.43) and remained significant in the 175 patients who had ICD implanted as primary prevention (OR 3.86, 95%CI: 1.13 - 13.18). More rapid NSVT (Cl < 310ms) predicted appropriate ICD shocks and SCD (OR 7.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 36.8), and longer NSVT (> 18beats) also predicted appropriate ICD shocks and SCD (OR=23.7, 95%CI: 2.7, 204.9). Conclusion: The agreement for detecting NSVT between Holter and ICD interrogation is poor. NSVT is significantly associated with appropriate ICD shocks and SCD. Faster and longer NSVT are even more predictive. Extending rhythm monitor time merits consideration in HCM patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document