ABSTRACT
Introducción y objetivos El estudio ADVANCE III mostró una reducción de terapias del desfibrilador automático implantable (DAI) con el empleo de tiempos de detección de arritmia prolongados. Se describe la adopción y el impacto de dicha estrategia en la incidencia de terapias del DAI. Métodos Estudio observacional retrospectivo de pacientes con implante de DAI Medtronic (2005-2016) en un registro multicéntrico (UMBRELLA-NCT01561144). Se describe la evolución de la adopción de programación ADVANCE en relación con: publicación del estudio, implementación de una campaña de formación y publicación de un consenso de expertos. Se identificaron con regresión logística los predictores de la adopción. Se comparó la incidencia de terapias en pacientes con y sin programación ADVANCE estimando la razón de tasas de incidencia ajustada (RTIa) mediante regresión binomial negativa. Resultados Se incluyó a 3.528 pacientes. Se utilizó la estrategia ADVANCE en el 20% del total y el 44% al final del estudio. La adopción se incrementó tras publicarse el estudio ADVANCE, y en menor grado tras la campaña de formación y consenso de expertos. Predictores de la adopción: DAI con detección nominal 30/40 (ORa=4,4; IC95%, 3,5-5,4), implantador electrofisiólogo (ORa=1,7; IC95%, 1,4-2,2) y prevención secundaria (ORa=3,2; IC95%, 2,6-3,9). El implante de DAI bicameral (ORa=0,6; IC95%, 0,5-0,8) o tricameral (ORa=0,5; IC95%, 0,4-0,7) se asoció con menor adopción. La programación ADVANCE se asoció con reducción de terapias totales (RTIa=0,77; IC95%, 0,69-0,86) y choques inapropiados (RTIa=0,66; IC95%, 0,52-0,85). Conclusiones La adopción de la programación ADVANCE es poco amplia y puede mejorarse mediante una adecuada selección de los parámetros nominales. Emplearla se asocia con una reducción de las terapias del DAI. (AU)
Introduction and objectives The ADVANCE III trial showed that a delayed-detection strategy reduces implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Here, we describe the adherence to and predictors of ADVANCE adoption and compare ICD therapy rates between patients with and without ADVANCE programming. Methods This observational retrospective study analyzed patients implanted with Medtronic ICDs included from 2005 to 2016 in a Spanish national multicenter registry (UMBRELLA database; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01561144). Changes in ADVANCE programming adoption were described in relation to a) publication of the ADVANCE trial, b) implementation of an ADVANCE awareness campaign, and c) publication of an expert consensus statement. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of adoption. Therapy incidence rates were compared between groups by estimating the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) using negative binomial regression. Results A total of 3528 patients were included. An ADVANCE strategy was used in 20% overall and in 44% at the end of the study. ADVANCE III adoption increased after trial publication, with less growth after an ADVANCE awareness campaign and after expert consensus statement publication. Predictors of ADVANCE adoption were as follows: ICD device with a nominal number of intervals to detect 30/40 (aOR, 4.4; 95%CI, 3.5-5.4), implantation by an electrophysiologist (aOR, 1.7; 95%CI, 1.4-2.2), and secondary prevention (aOR, 3.2; 95%CI, 2.6-3.9). Dual-chamber ICDs (aOR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.5-0.8) and cardiac resynchronization-defibrillators (aOR, 0.5; 95%CI, 0.4-0.7) were associated with lower adoption. ADVANCE programming was associated with reduced total therapy burden (aIRR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.69-0.86) and fewer inappropriate shocks (aIRR, 0.66; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85). Conclusions ADVANCE adoption remains modest and can be improved through evidence-driven selection of nominal ICD settings. ... (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Defibrillators, Implantable , Precision Medicine , Retrospective Studies , Epidemiology, DescriptiveABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The ADVANCE III trial showed that a delayed-detection strategy reduces implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Here, we describe the adherence to and predictors of ADVANCE adoption and compare ICD therapy rates between patients with and without ADVANCE programming. METHODS: This observational retrospective study analyzed patients implanted with Medtronic ICDs included from 2005 to 2016 in a Spanish national multicenter registry (UMBRELLA database; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01561144). Changes in ADVANCE programming adoption were described in relation to a) publication of the ADVANCE trial, b) implementation of an "ADVANCE awareness" campaign, and c) publication of an expert consensus statement. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of adoption. Therapy incidence rates were compared between groups by estimating the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: A total of 3528 patients were included. An ADVANCE strategy was used in 20% overall and in 44% at the end of the study. ADVANCE III adoption increased after trial publication, with less growth after an "ADVANCE awareness" campaign and after expert consensus statement publication. Predictors of ADVANCE adoption were as follows: ICD device with a nominal number of intervals to detect 30/40 (aOR, 4.4; 95%CI, 3.5-5.4), implantation by an electrophysiologist (aOR, 1.7; 95%CI, 1.4-2.2), and secondary prevention (aOR, 3.2; 95%CI, 2.6-3.9). Dual-chamber ICDs (aOR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.5-0.8) and cardiac resynchronization-defibrillators (aOR, 0.5; 95%CI, 0.4-0.7) were associated with lower adoption. ADVANCE programming was associated with reduced total therapy burden (aIRR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.69-0.86) and fewer inappropriate shocks (aIRR, 0.66; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: ADVANCE adoption remains modest and can be improved through evidence-driven selection of nominal ICD settings. ADVANCE programming is associated with reduced therapy rates in real-world ICD recipients.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , Defibrillators, Implantable , Electric Countershock , Humans , Incidence , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Adult , Electrocardiography/methods , Electrocardiography/trends , Electrocardiography , Brugada Syndrome/chemically induced , Cannabis , Flecainide , Brugada Syndrome/complications , Cannabis , Marijuana Smoking/adverse effects , Marijuana AbuseSubject(s)
Brugada Syndrome/chemically induced , Cannabis/adverse effects , Electrocardiography/drug effects , Marijuana Abuse/complications , Adult , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/chemically induced , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/physiopathology , Brugada Syndrome/physiopathology , Flecainide , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
The minimum in-stent lumen diameter is a predictor of restenosis. Stent dimensions provided by manufacturers are derived from in vitro tests. The aim of this study was to compare actual stent dimensions obtained by angiography and intracoronary ultrasound with dimensions that would be expected theoretically for a given inflation pressure in a cohort of 100 non-complex lesions suitable for direct stenting. Significant differences were found between the theoretical diameters and those observed by angiography and ultrasound. The actual-to-theoretical diameter ratio was 0.83 (0.09) when measured using angiography and 0.78 (0.10), using intravascular ultrasound. In lesions without severe calcification, stent dimensions were significantly smaller than indicated by the manufacturer. Nominal figures should not be used as reference values for stent implantation.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary , Stents , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Restenosis/prevention & control , Coronary Vessels/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Stents/standards , Ultrasonography, InterventionalABSTRACT
El diámetro luminal mínimo intra-stent es predictor de reestenosis. Las dimensiones suministradas por el fabricante son el resultado de pruebas in vitro. El objetivo del trabajo es comparar las dimensiones reales, mediante angiografía y ultrasonidos, con las teóricas en una cohorte prospectiva de 100 lesiones no complejas susceptibles a priori de stenting directo. Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los diámetros teóricos y reales por angiografía y ultrasonidos intracoronarios; la relación diámetro real/teórico por angiografía fue de 0,83 ± 0,09 y por ultrasonidos intracoronarios, 0,78 ± 0,10. Las medidas reales obtenidas en lesiones sin calcificación severa son significativamente inferiores que las teóricas. Las medidas nominales no deberían utilizarse como medida de referencia en el implante
The minimum in-stent lumen diameter is a predictor of restenosis. Stent dimensions provided by manufacturers are derived from in vitro tests. The aim of this study was to compare actual stent dimensions obtained by angiography and intracoronary ultrasound with dimensions that would be expected theoretically for a given inflation pressure in a cohort of 100 non-complex lesions suitable for direct stenting. Significant differences were found between the theoretical diameters and those observed by angiography and ultrasound. The actual-to-theoretical diameter ratio was 0.83 (0.09) when measured using angiography and 0.78 (0.10), using intravascular ultrasound. In lesions without severe calcification, stent dimensions were significantly smaller than indicated by the manufacturer. Nominal figures should not be used as reference values for stent implantation
Subject(s)
Humans , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary , Stents , Coronary Disease/therapy , Coronary Disease , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Ultrasonography, InterventionalABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical revascularization is the procedure of choice for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, but it may be unsuitable in some patients. We report short- and medium-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in a series of patients who were poor candidates for surgery. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Descriptive study of a historic cohort of consecutive patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis who were not candidates for surgery, treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at a single center between April 1999 and December 2003. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients (mean age 72 [9] years) were included. Twenty patients (24%) were in shock on presentation. Surgery was considered unsuitable because of unacceptable surgical risk, poor condition of the distal vessels or comorbid conditions in 61 (73.5%) patients, or acute myocardial infarction in 22 (27%). An intraaortic balloon pump was used in 34 (40%); abciximab in 30 (36%) and stenting in 79 (95%) procedures. The intervention was considered successful in 76 patients (92%). Total in-hospital mortality was 28.9% (55% in patients with acute myocardial infarction and 20% in those without acute myocardial infarction). Median follow-up was 17 months. Average survival was 19.7 (2) months. Eighteen (22%) patients were hospitalized again for a new ischemic event, and 14 (17%) underwent revascularization. In 9 cases (10.8%) a new angioplasty was performed, and in 5 (6.0%) surgical revascularization was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention is an option for revascularization in left main coronary artery stenosis in patients who are poor candidates for surgery, although in-hospital and long-term mortality remain high.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/adverse effects , Coronary Disease/mortality , Coronary Disease/surgery , Coronary Vessels/pathology , Myocardial Revascularization/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Coronary Angiography , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Coronary Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Vessels/surgery , Female , Humans , Male , Myocardial Infarction/prevention & control , Myocardial Infarction/surgery , Myocardial Revascularization/methods , Survival Analysis , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Objetivo. Determinar los resultados clínicos de la revascularización con stents intracoronarios en vasos menores de 3 mm. Pacientes y métodos. El tamaño del vaso se evaluó como menor o mayor o igual de 3 mm en el momento del procedimiento y fue medido en el diámetro máximo. Estudiamos a un total de 234 pacientes consecutivos (300 stents en 279 lesiones), con un seguimiento clínico de 17,6 ñ 10 meses, comprendiendo 84 stents implantados en 79 lesiones localizadas en vasos pequeños (< 3 mm).Se usó dilatación del stent a altas presiones (15,8 ñ 2,2 atm) y tratamiento con aspirina y ticlopidina durante un mes. Resultados. La tasa de éxito del implante, sin eventos clínicos hospitalarios, fue del 93,7 por ciento en los vasos < 3 mm y del 93,5 por ciento en los 3 mm (p = NS). La trombosis subaguda del stent ocurrió en tres vasos < 3 mm, frente a ninguna oclusión trombótica en vasos 3 mm (el 3,8 frente al 0 por ciento; p = 0,006). A los dos años, la supervivencia libre de revascularización de la lesión diana fue inferior en vasos pequeños (el 73,6 frente al 90,3 por ciento; p < 0,001). En el análisis multivariado, un vaso < 3 mm fue predictor independiente de revascularización de la lesión diana a largo plazo (p = 0,001). A los dos años, la supervivencia libre de cualquier acontecimiento (muerte [el 4,6 frente al 3,8 por ciento; p = 0,7], infarto de miocardio [el 2,9 frente al 1,1 por ciento; p = 0,3] y revascularización de la lesión diana) para pacientes con implantes en vasos < 3 mm fue del 69,1, frente al 86,6 por ciento para implantes en vasos 3 mm (p < 0,001).Conclusión. El implante de stents en coronarias < 3 mm puede realizarse con éxito inicial similar al de los vasos mayores; sin embargo, se asocia a una mayor incidencia, tanto de trombosis subaguda como de reestenosis clínica (revascularización de la lesión diana) a largo plazo (AU)
