Why the study?
Previous reports from large centres showed a high prevalence of implantable cardiac devices in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot, prompting investigation in a less selected population and assessment of non-arrhythmia factors associated with device presence.
What is the prevalence of implantable cardiac devices and what factors are associated with having a device in adult patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot?
What is the prevalence of implantable cardiac devices and what factors are associated with having a device in adult patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot?
The prevalence of implantable cardiac devices in a less selected, multicenter cohort of adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot is lower than previously reported, particularly for ICDs.
Device prevalence in repaired tetralogy of Fallot may be lower than prior estimates; leaves open optimal indications and prospective validation of associated factors.
Objectives Implantable cardiac devices are common in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) (18.3–21.3%) according to previous reports from large centres. We conducted this study to investigate the prevalence and incidence of cardiac devices in a less selected population of patients with ToF and assess factors other than arrhythmia associated with having a device. Design: 530 adult (≥18 years) patients with repaired ToF were identified in the national registry of congenital heart disease (SWEDCON) and matched with data from the Swedish pacemaker registry. Patients with implantable cardiac devices were compared with patients without devices. Results: Seventy-five patients (14.2%) had a device; 51 (9.6%) had a pacemaker and 24 (4.5%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The incidence in adult age (≥18 years) was 5.9/1000 patient years. Estimated device free survival was 97.5% at twenty, 87.2% at forty and 63.5% at sixty years of age. Compared with previous studies, the prevalence of devices was lower, especially for ICD. In multivariate logistic regression, cardiovascular medication (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–6.8), impaired left ventricular function, (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.3–5.0) and age (OR 1.02, 95%CI 1.002–1.05) were associated with having a device. Conclusion: The prevalence of devices in our population, representing a multicenter register cohort, was lower than previously reported, especially regarding ICD. This can be due to differences in treatment traditions with regard to ICD in this population, but it may also be that previous studies have reported selected patients with more severe disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandström et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: