Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Ching CK, Hsieh YC, Liu YB, Rodriguez DA, Kim YH, Joung B, et al.
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 2021 08;32(8):2285-2294.
    PMID: 34216069 DOI: 10.1111/jce.15149
    BACKGROUND: In primary prevention (PP) patients the utilization of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D) remains low in many geographies, despite the proven mortality benefit.

    PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the mortality benefit in PP patients by guideline-indicated device type: ICD and CRT-D.

    METHODS: Improve sudden cardiac arrest was a prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded multicenter trial that enrolled patients from regions where ICD utilization is low. PP patient's CRT-D or ICD eligibility was based upon the 2008 ACC/AHA/HRS and 2006 ESC guidelines. Mortality was assessed according to guideline-indicated device type comparing implanted and nonimplanted patients. Cox proportional hazards methods were used, adjusting for known factors affecting mortality risk.

    RESULTS: Among 2618 PP patients followed for a mean of 20.8 ± 10.8 months, 1073 were indicated for a CRT-D, and 1545 were indicated for an ICD. PP CRT-D-indicated patients who received CRT-D therapy had a 58% risk reduction in mortality compared with those without implant (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.61, p 

  2. Zhang S, Chen WJ, Sankardas MA, Ahmed WH, Liew HB, Gwon HC, et al.
    JACC Asia, 2022 Oct;2(5):559-571.
    PMID: 36518723 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2022.06.006
    BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients varies by geography but remains low in many regions despite guideline recommendations.

    OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the care pathway of post-MI patients and understand barriers to referral for further SCD risk stratification and management in patients meeting referral criteria.

    METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, multi-nation study included patients ≥18 years of age, with an acute MI ≤30 days and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% ≤14 days post-MI. The primary endpoint was defined as the physician's decision to refer a patient for SCD stratification and management.

    RESULTS: In total, 1,491 post-MI patients were enrolled (60.2 ± 12.0 years of age, 82.4% male). During the study, 26.7% (n = 398) of patients met criteria for further SCD risk stratification; however, only 59.3% of those meeting criteria (n = 236; 95% CI: 54.4%-64.0%) were referred for a visit. Of patients referred for SCD risk stratification and management, 94.9% (n = 224) attended the visit of which 56.7% (n =127; 95% CI: 50.1%-63.0%) met ICD indication criteria. Of patients who met ICD indication criteria, 14.2% (n = 18) were implanted.

    CONCLUSIONS: We found that ∼40% of patients meeting criteria were not referred for further SCD risk stratification and management and ∼85% of patients who met ICD indications did not receive a guideline-directed ICD. Physician and patient reasons for refusing referral to SCD risk stratification and management or ICD implant varied by geography suggesting that improvement will require both physician- and patient-focused approaches. (Improve Sudden Cardiac Arrest [SCA] Bridge Study; NCT03715790).

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links