4.1 Article

Association between the Charlson comorbidity index and outcomes after implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator replacement

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 1236-1242

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.13762

关键词

Charlson comorbidity index; comorbidity; ICD; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator replacement with multiple medical comorbidities may be at higher risk of adverse outcomes that attenuate the benefit of ICD replacement. The aim of this investigation was to study the association between the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and outcomes after ICD generator replacement. Methods All patients undergoing first ICD generator replacement at Mayo Clinic, Rochester and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston between 2001 and 2011 were identified. Outcomes included: (a) all-cause mortality, (b) appropriate ICD therapy, and (c) death prior to appropriate therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to assess association between CCI and outcomes. Results We identified 1421 patients with mean age of 69.6 +/- 12.1 years, 81% male and median (range) CCI of 3 (0-18). During a mean follow-up of 3.9 +/- 3 years, 52% of patients died, 30.6% experienced an appropriate therapy, and 23.6% died without experiencing an appropriate therapy. In multivariable analysis, higher CCI score was associated with increased all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio, HR 1.10 [1.06-1.13] per 1 point increase in CCI, P < .001), death without prior appropriate therapy (HR 1.11 [1.07-1.15], P < .0001), but not associated with appropriate therapy (HR 1.01 [0.97-1.05], P = .53). Patients with CCI >= 5 had an annual risk of death of 12.2% compared to 8.7% annual rate of appropriate therapy. Conclusions CCI is predictive of mortality following ICD generator replacement. The benefit of ICD replacement in patients with CCI score >= 5 should be investigated in prospective studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据