Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 6(11)2017 Nov 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29122811

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.


Assuntos
Morte Súbita Cardíaca/prevenção & controle , Desfibriladores Implantáveis/efeitos adversos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Prevenção Primária/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Idoso , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/mortalidade , Humanos , Incidência , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida/tendências , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
2.
Trib. méd. (Bogotá) ; 99(3): 119-28, mar. 1999. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS | ID: lil-294219

RESUMO

Formulas que combinan dos medicamentos antihipertensores y que se suministran una sola vez al día, consiguen mejor cumplimiento del tratamiento por parte del paciente y parecen más efectivas y mejor toleradas que las prescripciones actualmente en uso


Assuntos
Humanos , Hipertensão , Hipertensão/diagnóstico , Hipertensão/dietoterapia , Hipertensão/terapia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA