Library

Notes: Prehospital discharge defibrillation testing is often performed to verify the function of newly implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). To determine whether elimination of predischarge testing could reduce costs without placing patients at additional risk, 31 patients were randomized in this prospective clinical evaluation to either receive or not receive a predischarge ICD defibrillation test. Expenses associated with postimplant care was the primary endpoint. All patients underwent induction of ventricular fibrillation after 6 months to evaluate ICD function. The groups were well matched in terms of patient characteristics, initial lead implant parameters, and defibrillation thresholds. Elimination of prehospital discharge testing resulted in a savings of $1,800/patient after 6 months, with no difference between groups in terms of ICD complication rates or unanticipated hospital admissions. Further studies are needed to better define the most appropriate time to assess defibrillation thresholds in the first year after implantation.

Notes: Introduction: Biventricular cardiac pacemakers provide important hemodynamic benefit in selected patients with heart failure and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, these patients remain at high mortality risk. To address this issue, we examined mortality outcome in patients with heart failure treated with biventricular pacemakers alone and those treated with biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Methods and Results: The study population consisted of 126 consecutive patients with LV dysfunction and heart failure who received either a biventricular ICD (n = 62) or a biventricular pacemaker (n = 64) between January 1998 and December 2002. A minimum 12 months of follow-up was obtained in all survivors. ICD indications were conventional in all patients. Kaplan-Meier actuarial method and log rank statistics were used to calculate and compare survival rates in both groups. Comparison of mortality rates utilized Chi-square test. The two groups had similar clinical and demographic features, LV ejection fraction, and medication use. Average follow-up times were 13 ± 11.8 months (range 4–60) and 18 ± 13.2 months (range 0.5–53) for biventricular ICD and pacemaker groups, respectively. Overall mortality rate was significantly lower in the biventricular ICD group (13%, 8 deaths) compared to the pacemaker group (41%, 26 deaths) (P = 0.01). Further, the predominant survival benefit for ICD-treated patients becomes evident after the first 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: The findings in this study, although necessarily limited in their interpretation by the absence of treatment randomization, suggest that biventricular ICDs offer a survival benefit compared to biventricular pacing alone. Furthermore, this benefit may be most apparent if other clinical factors do not preclude patient survival 〉1 year postimplant.

Notes: Introduction: Survival in patients awaiting cardiac transplantation is poor due to the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia. The potential role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this group of patients has been the subject of increasing interest. The aims of this study were to ascertain whether ICDs improve the survival rate of patients on the waiting list for cardiac transplantation and whether any improvement is independent of concomitant beta-blocker or amiodarone therapy. Methods and Results: Data comprised findings from 310 consecutive patients at a single center who were evaluated and deemed suitable for cardiac transplantation and placed on the waiting list. Kaplan-Meier actuarial approach was used for survival analysis. Survival analysis censored patients at time of transplantation or death. Of the 310 patients, 111 (35.8%) underwent successful cardiac transplantation and 164 (52.9%) died while waiting; 35 patients remain on the waiting list. Fifty-nine (19%) patients had ICD placement for ventricular arrhythmias prior to or after being listed. Twenty-nine (49.1%) ICD patients survived until cardiac transplantation, 13 (22%) patients died, and 17 (28.8%) remain on the waiting list. Among non-ICD patients, 82 (32.7%) received transplants, 151 (60.2%) died, and 18 (7.2%) remain on the waiting list. Survival rates at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were better for all ICD patients compared to non-ICD patients (log-rank x2, P = 0.0001 ). By multivariate analysis, ICD therapy and beta-blocker treatment were the strongest predictors of survival. Further, ICD treatment was associated with improved survival independent of concomitant treatment with beta-blocker or amiodarone. Among ICD and non-ICD patients treated with a beta-blocker or amiodarone, survivals at the 1 and 4 years were 93% vs 69% and 57% vs 32%, respectively (log-rank x2, P = 0.003 ). Conclusion: ICD therapy is associated with improved survival in high-risk cardiac transplant candidates, and ICD benefit appears to be independent of concomitant treatment. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. 578-583, June 2003)

Notes: Departments

Notes: Departments