4.6 Article

Right ventricular pacing is an independent predictor for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation occurrence and heart failure events in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 356-361

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eun019

关键词

ICD; heart failure; right ventricular pacing; VT/VF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims There is increasing evidence that right ventricular (RV) pacing may have detrimental effects by increasing morbidity and mortality for heart failure in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients. In this study we prospectively tested the hypothesis that cumulative RV pacing increases ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) occurrence (primary endpoint) and hospitalization and mortality for heart failure (secondary endpoint) in a predominantly secondary prophylactic ICD patient population. Methods and results Two hundred and fifty patients were divided into two groups according to the median of cumulative RV pacing (<= 2 vs. > 2%) and prospectively followed-up for occurrence of primary and secondary endpoints for 18 +/- 4 months. Established predictors for VT/VF occurrence and heart failure events such as age, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), QRS duration, history of atrial fibrillation, and NT-proBNP were collected at enrolment. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that cumulative RV pacing > 2% and EF < 40% were independent predictors for VT/VF occurrence and heart failure events. Kaptan-Meier analysis showed that patients with > 2% cumulative RV pacing more frequently suffered from VT/VF occurrence and heart failure hospitalization. Conclusion Cumulative RV pacing > 2% and EF < 40% are independent predictors for VT/VF occurrence and mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in predominantly secondary prophylactic ICD patients. Our data show that algorithms capable of reducing cumulative RV pacing should be used more frequently in clinical practice.

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

4.6
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