PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 2003Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology315 citations

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in High‐Risk Long QT Syndrome Patients

View Full Paper
WZWojciech ZarębaAMArthur J. MossJDJames P. Daubert

Key Result

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in high-risk long QT syndrome patients were associated with 1.3% total mortality over 3 years versus 16% over 8 years without an ICD (P=0.07).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=286)

Structured PICO

Does an implantable cardioverter defibrillator reduce total mortality in high-risk long QT syndrome patients?

P
Population
286 high-risk long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients, including 125 treated with ICDs (54 cardiac arrest survivors, 19 with recurrent syncope despite beta-blocker therapy, 52 for other reasons) and 161 not treated with ICDs but having similar risk indications (89 cardiac arrest, 72 recurrent syncope despite beta-blocker therapy).
I
Intervention
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)
C
Comparator
No ICD (patients with similar risk indications who did not receive ICDs)
O
Outcome
Total mortalityhard clinical

In high-risk LQTS patients, ICD implantation was associated with a trend toward lower total mortality compared to non-ICD management, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.07) and follow-up durations varied between groups.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 1.3% vs 16%

p-value: p=0.07

Limitations

  • Lack of long-term prospective data

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly being used in high-risk long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients, but there are limited data regarding clinical experience with this therapeutic modality. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical characteristics of 125 LQTS patients treated with ICDs compared with LQTS patients having similar risk indications who were not treated with ICDs. Among 125 LQTS patients with ICDs, there were 54 cardiac arrest survivors, 19 patients who had ICDs implanted due to recurrent syncope despite beta-blocker therapy, and 52 patients with ICDs implanted due to other reasons, including syncope and LQTS-related sudden death in a close family member. Patients with cardiac arrest and those with recurrent syncope despite beta-blocker therapy (n = 73) were compared to 161 LQTS patients who had similar indications (89 cardiac arrest and 72 recurrent syncope despite beta-blocker therapy) but did not receive ICDs. Total mortality was the endpoint of the analysis. There was 1 (1.3%) death in 73 ICD patients followed an average of 3 years, whereas there were 26 deaths (16%) in non-ICD patients during mean 8-year follow-up (P = 0.07 from log rank test from Kaplan-Meier curves). CONCLUSION: ICDs provide an important therapeutic option to prevent sudden arrhythmic death in high-risk LQTS patients. A long-term prospective study is needed to determine the benefit of this therapeutic modality in LQTS patients.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zaręba et al. (2003) conducted a cohort in High-risk Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) (n=286). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD was evaluated on Total mortality (p=0.07). Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in high-risk long QT syndrome patients were associated with 1.3% total mortality over 3 years versus 16% over 8 years without an ICD (P=0.07).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a08623dafa0a1b8dbddf50dhttps://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2003.02545.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper