Key result
The presence of an active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with continuous flow LVADs was not associated with improved survival (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.37-3.35).
Why the study?
Does an active ICD improve survival in patients with continuous flow LVADs?
Population
106 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of the HeartMate II LVAD at a single center. Mean age…
Comparison
Active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator… vs No ICD or an inactivated ICD post-LVAD (n=36)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 217 days
Authors
Loading...
No survival benefit linked to active ICDs in continuous-flow LVAD patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=106)
No
Does an active ICD improve survival in patients with continuous flow LVADs?
Hazard Ratio: 1.12 (95% CI 0.37–3.35)
In patients with continuous flow LVADs, the presence of an active ICD is not associated with improved survival despite a high incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.
Enriquez et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support (n=106). Active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD or inactivated ICD was evaluated on Survival (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.37-3.35). The presence of an active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with continuous flow LVADs was not associated with improved survival (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.37-3.35).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: