Why the study?
There is limited information on the long-term outcomes of ICDs in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes.
Does device type, indication, or diagnosis type predict the incidence of appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks, and lead complications in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes receiving an ICD?
Does device type, indication, or diagnosis type predict the incidence of appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks, and lead complications in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes receiving an ICD?
In patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes, multi-lead ICDs are associated with significantly higher rates of inappropriate shocks and lead complications compared to single-lead devices, highlighting the need for careful risk-benefit assessment during device selection.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Registry data on ICDs in inherited arrhythmias are hypothesis-generating; prospective studies needed before guiding selection.
BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the long-term outcomes of ICDs in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. METHODS: Prospective registry study of inherited arrhythmia patients with an ICD. Incidence of therapies and complications were measured as 5-year cumulative incidence proportions and analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Incidence was compared by device indication, diagnosis type and device type. Cox-regression analysis was used to identify predictors of appropriate shock and device complication. RESULTS: 123 patients with a mean follow up of 6.4 ± 4.8 years were included. The incidence of first appropriate shock was 56.52% vs 24.44%, p < 0.05 for cardiomyopathy and channelopathy patients, despite similar ejection fraction (61% vs 60%, p = 0.6). The incidence of first inappropriate shock was 13.46% vs 56.25%, p < 0.01 for single vs. multi-lead devices. The incidence of first lead complication was higher for multi-lead vs. single lead devices, 43.75% vs. 17.31%, p = 0.04. Patients with an ICD for secondary prevention were more likely to receive an appropriate shock than those with primary prevention indication (HR 2.21, CI 1.07-4.56, p = 0.03). Multi-lead devices were associated with higher risk of inappropriate shock (HR 3.99, CI 1.27-12.52, p = 0.02), with similar appropriate shock risk compared to single lead devices. In 26.5% of patients with dual chamber devices, atrial sensing or pacing was not utilized. CONCLUSION: The rate of appropriate therapies and ICD complications in patients with inherited arrhythmia is high, particularly in cardiomyopathies with multi-lead devices. Risk-benefit ratio should be carefully considered when assessing the indication and type of device in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siskin et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: