ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: By recording the treatment events of implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD) in patients with ejection fraction reduced heart failure(HFrEF), to analyze the difference in primary and secondary prevention patients. METHODS: A single center retrospective study was conducted. HFrEF patients with ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy with cardioverter defibrillator(CRT-D) implanted in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2006 to December 2017 were enrolled in our study. Basic clinical data was collected and ICD treatment events were recorded during follow-up. The appropriate treatment events were identified according to electrocardiogram recorded by ICD. The ICD treatment events of primary and secondary prevention patients were analyzed. RESULTS: 1) A total of 145 patients with HFrEF implanted with ICD or CRT-D were enrolled, 103 primary prevention patients and 42 secondary prevention patients. Primary prevention patients had longer left ventricular end-systolic diameter(LVESD) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) than secondary prevention patients. 2) Multivariate competitive risk regression analysis showed that secondary prevention patients and male patients had higher risk of receiving appropriate treatment and appropriate shock therapy. 3) K-M curve and Log-Rank test showed that there was no significant difference in the risk of inappropriate treatment between primary and secondary prevention patients. The main cause of inappropriate treatment was atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: 1) Primary prevention patients have lower risk of receiving appropriate treatment and appropriate shock therapy than secondary prevention patients; 2) There is no significant difference between primary and secondary prevention patients in the risk of inappropriate treatment. The main cause of inappropriate treatment events is atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the factors responsible for the insufficient application of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The research is a single center registration study in a tertiary referral hospital in Beijing. The general characteristics, history of atrial fibrillation, comorbidities and anticoagulation treatment were obtained from all patients.Factors affecting the oral Walfarin use were evaluated by univariable and multivariable regression analysis.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>OAC therapy with Walfarin was applied on Only 214(39.4%) out of 576 consecutive patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The OAC rate was 30.3% among non-ablation patients. Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, diabetes, chronic heart failure, history of ischemic stroke/TIA and higher CHA2DS2-VASc score were more likely prescribed with Walfarin. Multivariable regression analysis showed that persistent fibrillation, history of chronic heart failure, ischemic stroke/TIA and non-coronary heart disease predicted the treatment with Walfarin.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>OAC use is extremely low in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. More efforts are warranted to improve OAC use in these patients.</p>
Subject(s)
Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Administration, Oral , Anticoagulants , Therapeutic Uses , Atrial Fibrillation , Drug Therapy , Regression Analysis , Warfarin , Therapeutic UsesABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been suggested for heart failure patients for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, few data have been reported on the application of ICD as primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in China. We evaluated the value of primary prevention ICD therapy in Chinese patients with heart failure.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Thirty-four patients at an average age of (60.2 +/- 13.7) years seen in Peking Union Medical College Hospital were treated with ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death from November 2005 to July 2009. Single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 16 (47.0%) cases, and dual-chamber or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in 18 (53.0%) cases. The patients had an average left ventricular ejection fraction of (26.9 +/- 5.5)% (11% to 35%), of which 18 (53.0%) patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 16 (47.0%) patients had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. All patients were followed up at three months after the implantation and every six months thereafter or when prompted by an ICD event.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were five (14.7%) deaths, including two of heart failure and three with a non-cardiac course, during an average follow-up of (15.0 +/- 11.9) months. Forty-one ICD therapy events were recorded, including 19 (46.3%) appropriate ICD therapies in six patients and 22 (53.7%) inappropriate ICD therapies in four patients with single chamber leads. Inappropriate ICD therapies were mainly due to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy did not differ in the incidence of either appropriate or inappropriate therapy.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in China prevents patients from arrhythmia death. Relatively high incidence of inappropriate therapies highlights the importance of an atrial lead.</p>