植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常

目的 报道植入型心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常５例次临床应用经验。方法 采用经静脉途径为４例恶性室性心律失常患者植入５台植入型心律转复除颤器,并随访３～６４个月。结果 随访期间１例患者发生１次室性心动过速并经低通量电击复律成功和１次误放电,余患者经抗心律失常药物治疗无症状发作。结论 植入型心律转复除颤器有效地治疗恶性室性心律失常,预防心脏性猝死的发生,适当的抗心律失常药物可减少植入型心律转复除     

埋藏式心律转复除颤器患者健康教育与出院后随访

致命性室性心律失常(持续性室性心动过速,心室扑动和心室颤动)是心脏性猝死的主要原因.植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)已广泛用于治疗致命性室性心律失常和心源性猝死的高危患者.临床资料表明,ICD能降低致命性室常急性期病死率,疗效明显优于抗心律失常药[1].     

心律失常治疗的现代进展(3)室性心律失常的治疗策略(续2)

室性心律失常(VA)包括室性早博(VPB),室性心动过速(VT),心室扑动和心室颤动.心室颤动和快室率的VT可导致严重后果,甚至心脏性猝死.VA的治疗目的为终止严重的VA发作,预防心脏性猝死.VA的治疗策略包括药物与非药物治疗,前者为抗心律失常药物与具有抗心律失常作用的非抗心律失常药物治疗,后者包括植入型心脏复律除颤器(ICD)和导管消融等治疗.本文就VA的治疗策略作一介绍.     

植入型心律转复除颤器治疗两例患者

心脏性猝死以室性心动过速(室速)、心室颤动(室颤)引起者占82%以上.多个大规模临床试验已经证明植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)降低室性心律失常病人死亡率的效果明显优于抗心律失常药物.ICD术后辅以相应的抗心律失常药物可减少快速心律失常的发生.     

双腔起搏器术后3年植入全皮下植入型心律转复除颤器1例

全皮下植入型心律转复除颤器(S-ICD)是新一代的预防心脏性猝死的植入型电子装置, 它针对没有起搏适应证、无需抗心动过速起搏治疗以及不具有心脏再同步治疗适应证的患者。与传统的经静脉植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)相比, S-ICD避免了经静脉植入导线相关的并发症, 为预防心脏性猝死提供了新的器械治疗手段。本文报道1例因病态窦房结综合征和房室传导阻滞植入双腔起搏器后3年因室性心律失常再次植入S-ICD。     

植入型心脏再同步治疗除颤器治疗扩张性心肌病并恶性心律失常一例

慢性心力衰竭的主要死亡原因为进行性的心功能恶化和心脏性猝死。临床研究已证实心脏再同步治疗（CRT）可改善心功能，并可降低病死率。植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）能够显著降低心脏性猝死发生率，目前已经成为治疗恶性室性心律失常最有效的治疗方法之一。     

fQRS波对DCM伴恶性室性心律失常患者预后研究

目的探讨扩张型心肌病心力衰竭碎裂QRS波恶性室性心律失常患者的预后。方法将56例扩张型心肌病心力衰竭碎裂QRS波恶性室性心律失常患者组(观察组)接受电除颤、电复律、植入型心律转复除颤器及相关药物救治的预后与56例扩张型心肌病碎裂QRS波非恶性室性心律失常患者组(对照组)进行对比分析。结果观察组的1年内病死率18例(32.14%),对照组3例(5.35%),p0.01。观察组中5例接受植入型心律转复除颤器后1年内均存活。结论扩张型心肌病心力衰竭碎裂QRS波恶性室性心律失常患者的病死率较高,此类患者采用电除颤和电复律、植入型心律转复除颤器及相关药物治疗,可改善预后,降低病死率。     

动态心电图诊断双腔ICD漏诊的缓慢性室性心动过速

双腔ICD又称为双腔埋藏心脏复律除颤器,其心室电极集起搏,感知和除颤功能为一体,具有治疗缓慢性心律失常的起搏功能、抗心动过速、心脏复律及除颤功能,能显著地降低心源性猝死高危患者的死亡率,是目前防止心源性猝死最有效的方法。但是I级预防的ICD程控往往仅有两个诊断区,室性心动过速检测阈值较高,可能漏诊部分室性心动过速,尤其是缓慢型室性心动过速。     

加强埋藏式心脏复律除颤器的应用意识和术后随访

心脏性猝死一直是心血管内科临床的重要课题。我国虽然缺少准确的流行病学统计资料 ,但大家都明显地意识到 :近年来心脏性猝死的发生呈上升趋势。心脏性猝死的主要原因是心律失常 ,其中又以恶性室性心律失常为主。因此 ,预防和治疗恶性室性心律失常是预防心脏性猝死的关键。多个大规模临床试验 (ＡＶＩＤ、ＣＩＤＳ、ＣＡＳＨ)业已证明埋藏式心脏复律除颤器 (ｉｍｐｌａｎｔａｂｌｅｃａｒｄｉｏｖｅｒｔｅｒ ｄｅｆｉｂｒｉｌｌａｔｏｒ,ＩＣＤ)降低心律失常病人死亡率的效果明显优于抗心律失常药。目前已将ＩＣＤ作为治疗恶性室性心律失常…     

15例埋藏式心脏复律除颤器植入的诊治体会

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器（ICD）的应用为恶性室性心律失常的治疗开辟了一个新领域。最初,ICD植入的适应症范围较窄,只作为心脏性猝死的二级预防,目前ICD植入的适应症已经扩展到心脏性猝死的一级预防。在我国,ICD植入尚不广泛。我们2008年7月-2010年7月间共收治15例ICD植入病例,现将其临床资料分析如下。     

Use of traditional and biventricular implantable cardiac devices for primary and secondary prevention of sudden death

Sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of cardiac mortality, particularly among high-risk populations with known left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Multiple randomized clinical trials demonstrated a significant mortality benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or standard medical care. Initial ICD trials showed a mortality improvement for patients who previously had experienced aborted sudden cardiac death or sustained ventricular tachycardia (secondary prevention). Primary prevention trials in selected high-risk patients who had both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy also demonstrated a mortality benefit associated with ICD treatment. More recently, cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator capability has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality among advanced heart failure patients with a prolonged QRS duration.     

Update on implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials

Many randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of cardiac arrest or in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) have been reported. ICD therapy has been consistently efficacious in preventing SCD. ICD therapy has generally favorably impacted total mortality, but this has depended upon the control group's risk for arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic mortality. In these trials, predictors of sudden or total mortality better than ventricular dysfunction have not emerged. This review summarizes the randomized ICDs trials and the impact ICDs have on SCD prevention.     

Is primary antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular arrhythmias obsolete?

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a major public health threat. Patients with aborted SCD have a high incidence of recurrent life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drug approaches dominated early attempts to prevent SCD; however, several trials with sotalol and amiodarone revealed an unacceptably high rate of recurrent arrhythmic events. With the advent of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), the primary role of antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the secondary prevention of SCD has been called into question. Two recently completed trials, the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), confirm the superiority of the ICD over the best medical therapy for saving lives.     

Update of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure prevalence is reaching epidemic proportion in the United States and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A large proportion of the mortality is the result of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of the implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, several clinical trials in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in both ischemic and nonischemic heart failure have been completed. The 2002 guidelines for implantable cardioverter/defibrillator implantation were recently released as well. Adjunct therapy consisting of antiarrhythmic drugs or radiofrequency ablation is necessary in the subset of patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillator that have frequent or intractable ventricular arrhythmias. An emerging new therapy in the heart failure population is cardiac resynchronization therapy, which coordinates right and left ventricular pacing in a subset of patients with interventricular conduction delay. SUMMARY: Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated improvements in heart failure-related symptoms, exercise tolerance, and reversal of ventricular remodeling. Meta-analysis of these trials has also demonstrated mortality benefit. Patient selection, left ventricular pacing site, and optimal device programming are issues that need further investigation. Recent trials have also studied the compatibility between cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator as a single device. Finally, the DAVID trial has raised concerns of conventional right ventricular pacing and the risk of heart failure in a subset of patients.     

The role of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators in heart failure: Recent trials usher in a new era of device therapy

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) manifested as ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia has been a major focus of cardiovascular research for more than three decades. Although mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction has declined in recent years through effective pharmacotherapeutic strategies, SCD remains the major cause of death in symptomatic HF, with little improvement by drug therapy. Although it is clear that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is efficacious and should be used to prevent a recurrence of sustained ventricular arrhythmia (secondary prevention) in most patients, the guidelines for prophylactic use of ICDs (primary prevention) are less well defined. The results of recent clinical trials examining the efficacy of prophylactic ICD therapy in HF patients have clarified the role of ICD treatment in this population. This article reviews these trials and summarizes our current approach to the prevention of SCD in HF.     

Prevention of sudden cardiac death: lessons from recent controlled trials.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD), presumably because of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, remains one of the major challenges of contemporary cardiology. Major randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with the aim of primary prevention of SCD are providing insights. Several large-scale studies have demonstrated that treatment with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists, and statins results not only in a reduction in all-cause mortality but specifically also in SCD. On top of this optimized pharmacological therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) further decrease the risk of overall and SCD mortality in carefully selected patient groups. The sum of these trials indicates, however, that the benefit associated with ICD therapy is most prominent in patients with chronic stable CAD. In contrast, patients early after myocardial infarction derive less benefit from ICD treatment, presumably because of a high competing risk of non-arrhythmic cardiovascular death. Optimized pharmacological therapy, together with the ICD, can substantially improve the prognosis of high-risk CAD patients.     

The MUSTT Study: Evaluating Testing and Treatment

The multicenter unsustained tachycardia trial (MUSTT) tested the value of electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy against no therapy in high risk coronary artery disease with poor left ventricular function (LV-EF ≤ 40%) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. Risk assessment was performed by testing inducibility of a sustained ventricular tachycardia. The primary endpoint of the study was sudden arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest. Significant information on risk stratification was gathered by the follow-up of patients that were noninducible. Although MUSTT was not a specific ICD trial for primary prevention of SCD the results of the trial revealed that only with ICD back-up—a significant reduction of arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest can be achieved.EP-guided antiarrhythmic drug treatment had a lower incidence of SCD/CA compared to no treatment (12% versus 25%, p = 0.043, hazard ratio 0.73 after 24 months and 18% versus 32% after 60 months). A subgroup analysis showed that the benefit of antiarrhythmic treatment was only due to ICD implantation. No difference was found between those inducible pts treated exclusively with antiarrhythmic drugs and those who were randomized to no drug treatment. Patients who were not inducible did significantly better than pts who were inducible wether or not treated with antiarrhythmic drugs.MUSTT results strengthen the data of the MADIT study. They confirm the inducibility testing as the most accurate risk stratifier. MUSST demonstrated the poor value of serial EP drug testing as well as the risk of “stand alone” antiarrhythmic drug treatment.     

Current role of device therapy to reduce sudden cardiac death in heart failure

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) continues to be a major contributor to mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) despite recent advances in medical therapy. Device therapy, including the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), serves as an adjunct in reducing HF mortality. Several clinical trials support the prophylactic use of the ICD in reducing mortality in certain HF populations and have established the clinical benefits of CRT in advanced HF. More recently, the Comparison of Medical Therapy Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial was the first study to demonstrate a survival benefit of CRT alone or in conjunction with an ICD. This article reviews the most pertinent data regarding the role of device therapy in reducing SCD in HF and addresses future challenges faced by device manufacturers and clinicians.     

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator vest: Indications and ongoing questions

Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among specific high-risk populations. However, it remains unclear how to optimally treat those patients who are at elevated risk of cardiac arrest but are not among the presently identified groups proven to benefit from an ICD, are unable to tolerate surgical device implantation, or refuse invasive therapies. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is an alternative antiarrhythmic device that provides continuous cardiac monitoring and defibrillation capabilities through a noninvasive, electrode-based system. The WCD has been shown to be highly effective at restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with a ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and one randomized trial using the WCD in patients with recent myocardial infarction at elevated risk for arrhythmic death reported a decrease in overall mortality despite no SCD mortality benefit. The current clinical indications for WCD use are varied and continue to evolve as experience with this technology increases.     

Long-term follow-up of sudden cardiac arrest survivors and electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy

Sudden cardiac arrest survivors have a high risk of suffering from recurrent arrhythmic events. Recent studies have shown that these patients have a significantly decreased mortality rate, if they are supplied with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis of patients with electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy in comparison to patients with ICD. 204 consecutive survivors of sudden cardiac arrest were enrolled in this study. All patients were examined with an initial electrophysiologic study (EPS) with programmed ventricular stimulation. Patients were treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (if the inducible tachycardia was suppressed) or with the implantation of an ICD. The maximal follow-up period was 120 months, the mean period was 53.3 +/- 31.4 months (ICD) versus 60.3 +/- 35.5 months (EPS, nonsignificant). Patients with ICD showed an overall mortality rate of 14.6%, whereas EPS-guided patients had a mortality rate of 43.2% (p < 0.001). The cardiac and arrhythmogenic mortality rates were significantly lower in the ICD group (12 vs. 43%, p < 0.01, and 1 vs. 16%, p < 0.001, respectively). A reduction of the mortality risk was observed in the ICD group by up to 61% (all-cause mortality), 52% (cardiac mortality) and 97.2% (arrhythmogenic mortality). In arrhythmic event survivors with ICD, arrhythmic and overall mortality rates are significantly lower compared to patients with an EPS-guided drug therapy. In the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, ICD should be the first choice of antiarrhythmic therapy.