Biventricular ICDs had a significantly higher annual incidence of surgical revision for complications compared to single- and dual-chamber devices (11.8% vs 4.9% and 4.1%; RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.38-4.04).
Cohort (n=816)
Does biventricular ICD implantation increase the risk of surgical revision compared to single- or dual-chamber ICDs in ICD recipients?
Biventricular ICDs have a significantly higher rate of complications requiring surgical revision compared to single- and dual-chamber devices, primarily driven by lead-related issues.
Effect estimate: RR 2.37 (95% CI 1.38-4.04)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 4.9%
p-value: p=0.002
AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology has become more complex, particularly with respect to biventricular resynchronization devices. The incidence of hardware-related complications in single (SC)-, dual (DC)-, and triple (BiV)-chamber devices requiring surgical revision has not been investigated systematically. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from consecutive ICD recipients implanted between January 2000 and December 2007 with respect to the need of surgical re-intervention for device- or lead-related complications. Generator exchanges due to normal battery depletion were not considered. From 816 patients (81% male, 69% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 48% secondary prevention ICDs) followed for 31 +/- 24 months (2118 cumulative patient-years), 98 patients underwent 110 revisions (5.2% per patient-year). Complications included lead-related revision procedures in 81 cases and generator-related problems in 29 cases. The annual incidence of surgical revision due to complications was 11.8% in BiV compared with 4.9% in SC and 4.1% in DC patients (P = 0.002). This higher revision rate was mainly caused by lead-related complications. Implantation of a BiV system was an independent risk factor of the need for surgical revision (relative risk 2.37, 95% confidence interval 1.38-4.04). CONCLUSION: Even with long-lasting operator experience, complications requiring surgical revision remain a clinically important problem of ICD therapy. The incidence of complications is significantly higher in BiV resynchronization devices than in SC and DC systems.
أجرى دوراي وزملاؤه (الثلاثاء) دراسة جماعية في متلقي أجهزة تنظيم ضربات القلب المزروع (ICD) (عدد=816). تم تقييم جهاز تنظيم ضربات القلب ثنائي البطين (BiV) مقابل جهاز تنظيم ضربات القلب أحادي الحجرة (SC) وجهاز تنظيم ضربات القلب مزدوج الحجرة (DC) من حيث إعادة التدخل الجراحي للأعراض أو التعقيدات المتعلقة بالجهاز أو السلك (RR 2.37، 95% CI 1.38-4.04، p=0.002). كان للـ ICD ثنائي البطين معدل سنوي أعلى بشكل كبير من إعادة التدخل الجراحي للتعقيدات مقارنةً بالأجهزة أحادية و مزدوجة الحجرة (11.8% مقابل 4.9% و 4.1%; RR 2.37، 95% CI 1.38-4.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: