Key result
In patients with suspected Brugada syndrome, ICDs delivered appropriate shocks only in those with prior cardiac arrest (2 of 3), while 33% of the overall cohort experienced ICD-related adverse effects.
Why the study?
Does ICD implantation provide a favorable balance of arrhythmia protection versus device-related complications in patients with presumptive Brugada syndrome?
Population
33 consecutive patients with presumptive Brugada syndrome undergoing ICD implantation between 1995 and 2008…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
7.9 ± 3.6 years
Authors
Loading...
May not justify ICDs for primary prevention in suspected Brugada syndrome; leaves open refined risk stratification in prospective cohorts.
Cohort (n=33)
Does ICD implantation provide a favorable balance of arrhythmia protection versus device-related complications in patients with presumptive Brugada syndrome?
In patients with presumptive Brugada syndrome without a prior history of cardiac arrest, the risk of ICD-related adverse effects exceeds the low risk of arrhythmic events, highlighting the need for careful patient selection for primary prevention.
Steven et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Suspected Brugada syndrome (n=33). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was evaluated on Arrhythmic events and ICD-related adverse effects. In patients with suspected Brugada syndrome, ICDs delivered appropriate shocks only in those with prior cardiac arrest (2 of 3), while 33% of the overall cohort experienced ICD-related adverse effects.