植入型心律转复除颤器对慢性心力衰竭心脏性猝死的一级预防

目的评价植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）在慢性心力衰竭患者心脏性猝死一级预防中的治疗作用。方法对2005年1月至2008年12月符合ICD一级预防标准并植入ICD的患者进行随访。ICD的诊断设置室性心动过速（VT）、心室颤动（VF）两个工作区,治疗设置抗-tk,动过速起搏（ATP）、低能量同步转复（CV）和高能量除颤（DF）。术后患者常规给予抗心律失常药物。每3～6个月随访1次,利用程控仪获取ICD储存资料,了解患者心律失常发作情况以及ICD的诊断和治疗是否准确,及时调整相关参数并处理ICD故障。结果共随访了22例患者,平均随访（12．8±8．6）个月。共有10例患者记录到ICD治疗事件。10例患者ICD记录到持续性VT事件,其中由ATP终止6例,CV终止4例。4例患者有VF事件,均1次DF成功。2例ICD将快速心室率心房颤动（AF）识别为VF并进行放电治疗并转复房颤。结论ICD在慢性心力衰竭患者心脏性猝死一级预防中的治疗效果是肯定的,ICD联合抗心律失常药物能有效治疗恶性室性心律失常,预防心脏性猝死。     

植入型心律转复除颤器对心脏性猝死一级预防临床研究

目的 分析植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)及心脏再同步治疗除颤器(CRT-D)一级预防患者的室性心律失常发生情况.方法 统计分析2007年1月至2012年6月在浙江医院因一级预防而植入ICD或CRT-D的所有患者.结果 140例患者中,植入ICD的患者51例,CRT-D患者89例,平均随访(26.8±12.6)个月.结果显示在ICD一级预防中启动ICD正确治疗的室性心律失常发生率为19.3％,误治疗率为12.9％,其中误治疗中85.3％发生在单腔ICD一级预防中.ICD一级预防中主要死亡原因为心力衰竭(52.2％),非心脏原因死亡(39.1％).ICD正确治疗组与未治疗组相比,宽QRS时限、低左心室射血分数(LVEF)及高B型脑钠肽(NT-proBNP)容易导致室性心律失常发生.结论 在ICD或CRT-D一级预防患者中,宽QRS时限、低LVEF及高NT-proBNP容易导致室性心律失常发生;ICD误治疗主要发生在单腔ICD患者.     

植入型心律转复除颤器在心肌梗死后心脏性猝死中的研究进展

心脏性猝死(SCD)是由各种心脏因素引起的意外死亡,通常发生在症状出现后1 h内。冠心病和急性心肌梗死是SCD的主要病因。植入型心律转复除颤器是预防SCD最有效的措施,有效提高了心肌梗死后SCD高危患者的生存率,成为SCD一级预防的标准治疗方法。近年来,在临床上的应用有了新进展。现综述SCD的流行病学、心肌梗死后SCD的发生机制和心律转复除颤器在心肌梗死后SCD中的应用进展。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在心力衰竭心脏性猝死一级预防中的作用初步观察

目的总结我院应用植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）进行心力衰竭心脏性猝死（SCD）一级预防的初步经验。方法入选我院近3年因严重心力衰竭植入ICD进行SCD一级预防的患者,术后3个月进行ICD常规随访,以后每6个月随访1次。结果入选患者22例,其中单腔ICD15台,双腔ICD7台。22例患者随访时间3～28个月。记录ICD治疗事件21次,包括12次抗心动过速起搏（ATP）治疗和9次放电,只有1次ATP治疗患者具自觉症状。其中正确治疗（appropriate therapy）11次（52％）包括8次ATP治疗和3次放电,误治疗（inappropriate therapy）10次（48％）。发生误治疗患者均为植入单腔ICD。结论ICD可以安全有效地应用于心力衰竭SCD的一级预防,ICD误治疗事件是值得重视的临床问题,合理的ATP治疗可以提高患者的生活质量。     

12例慢性心力衰竭患者植入心律转复除颤器作为心脏性猝死的一级预防

目的探讨植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）对慢性心力衰竭患者心脏性猝死的一级预防作用。方法12例缺血性或非缺血性：心肌病患者，男性11例，女性1例，平均年龄59．4岁。心功能Ⅱ～Ⅲ级（NYHA分级），左心率射血分数0．23～0．36，常规进行标准抗心力衰竭治疗。患者均行ICD植入，并进行ICD参数的设置。术后1、3、6个月，以后每6个月随访1次，观察病人的临床症状，随访时通过体外程控仪调出ICD储存的资料进行分析，了解恶性心律失常的发生情况，ICD的工作情况。结果术中及随访期间无死亡及心力衰竭加重，尢手术并发症。全部病例随访了3～30个月，其中2例患者发生心室颤动（室颤），除颤成功，3例患者发生室性心动过速，ATP转复成功，1例患者因心房颤动快速心室率发生误放电，通过药物控制心室率及调整ICD参数，未再发生误放电。结论12例心力衰竭患者中在随访期内（3～30个月）5例（42％）发生了室颤或室性心动过速，均经ICD成功复律。因此，ICD能有效预防慢性心力衰竭患者的心脏性猝死。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在心脏性猝死防治中的应用

心脏性猝死（sudden cardiac death,SCD）是指患者在突发症状后的1h内,由于心脏骤停等原因引起的死亡。目前采用的症状发作后1h内死亡的严格时间定义使约90%以上的SCD归因于心律失常,其中恶性室性心律失常[室性心动过速（室速）,心室颤动（室颤）]约占85％。近年SCD逐渐成为导致人类死亡的一个重要疾病。在美国每年SCD的发病人数超过所有脑卒中、肺癌、乳腺癌和获得性免疫缺陷综合征（AIDS）患者死亡人数的总和,SCD事件的发生超过30万例次／年囡,占总死亡的13％。     

埋藏式心律转复除颤器在心脏性猝死的一级预防的应用

心脏性猝死(SCD)是心血管病患者的主要死亡原因,如何进行一级预防至关重要,本文分析了慢性心力衰竭患者室性心律失常的诱发因素,介绍了应用埋藏式心律转复除颤器(ICD)在心脏性猝死一级预防的临床试验,以及ICD应用的适应证。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用——全国31家医院植入型心律转复除颤器植入适应证分析

目的了解植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）适应证在我国的具体实施状况。方法研究分析全国31家医院2005年1月至2006年12月植入ICD患者的适应证。结果共入选142例植入ICD的猝死高危患者。其中符合2002年ACC／AHA／NASPE指南的ICD植入Ⅰ类适应证（二级预防）121例（85．2％），符合一级预防Ⅱa类适应证仅15例（10．6％）。结论现阶段我国的ICD植入适应证仍侧重于猝死的二级预防，而一级预防适应证患者的ICD治疗有待加强。     

植入型心律转复除颤器在一级预防心力衰竭患者中的应用

目的 观察左心室射血分数（LVEF）≤0.35心力衰竭患者的预后,评价植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）作为心脏性猝死（SCD）一级预防的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2007年1月1日至2009年12月31日在北京协和医院心内科住院LVEF≤0.35且否认既往心肺复苏、晕厥和持续室性心动过速（室速）或心室颤动（室颤）心力衰竭患者,收集住院期间临床资料和实验室检查数据,以电话随访为主,主要观察终点为全因死亡,次要观察终点为全因死亡或首次心脏性再住院的联合终点.使用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析.结果 共83例患者入选,5例（6.4％）失访,78例完成了随访,包括ICD组20例和对照组58例.经过中位21.5（2.0～41.0）个月随访,共19例（24.4％）死亡.总体1、2、3年全因死亡率分别为16.5％、26.4％、35.0％.ICD组和对照组1年死亡率分别为10.5％和18.3％ （P=0.525,Log-rank检验）,ICD组死亡率降低了42.6％;18个月死亡率分别为10.5％和24.8％（P=0.340,Logrank检验）,ICD组死亡率降低了57.7％.全因死亡或心脏性再住院联合终点事件的1、2、3年发生率分别为40.1％、56.0％、76.0％.ICD组和对照组1年联合终点事件发生率分别为26.5％和44.1％（P=0.203,Log-rank检验）,ICD组事件发生率降低了39.9％;18个月联合终点发生率分别为26.5％和54.6％（P=0.110,Log-rank检验）,ICD组事件发生率降低了51.5％.结论 LVEF≤0.35心力衰竭患者预后较差,ICD具有降低死亡率和心脏性再住院率的倾向性.需要进一步扩大样本量研究来证实.     

植入心律转复除颤器作为心力衰竭患者心脏性猝死的一级预防

心力衰竭是多种心脏疾病发展至晚期的一个严重临床综合征,随着人口老龄化速度的加快、心血管疾病发病率的上升,心脏疾病尤其是心肌梗死的有效治疗使更多的患者得以生存,但随后慢性心力衰竭患者日趋增多。心力衰竭最终死亡原因主要是进行性心力衰竭加重和／或心脏性猝死（SCD）。     

植入型心律转复除颤器一级预防的费用-效果分析

过去十余年间,数项大规模随机对照试验证实植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）可以改善左心室收缩功能不良导致的慢性心力衰竭患者的预后（一级预防）,ICD也因此在全世界范围内得到了广泛的应用.然而,ICD价格昂贵,而且在后期随访与更换中会产生大量费用,这些费用给患者家庭与社会带来的经济负担不容小觑.本文拟从费用-效果分析（cost-effectiveness analysis,CEA）的角度,对ICD做一经济评估.     

Recent primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The aim of this article is to summarize the most relevant findings of recently published trials on prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of important randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients deemed to be at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias have recently reported their results. Patients with chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, a long history of heart failure, and an ejection fraction of 0.30 or below benefit from preventive device therapy and are thus candidates for prophylactic defibrillator implantation. For this purpose, a single chamber device appears to be appropriate since there have been no prospective studies showing convincing clinical benefit by adding an atrial lead. Prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy should not be used in patients with recent myocardial infarction. There is convincing evidence from one trial that benefit from the defibrillator in coronary patients accrue after a considerable time has elapsed from the most recent infarct, presumably at least 6 months or perhaps longer. Finally, in patients with chronic dilated non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or below, there is also benefit from prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. SUMMARY: Taken together, these trials allow an evidence-based approach to primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.     

Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator use for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is used for primary and secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients. Although several trials have demonstrated the superiority of ICD over standard medical therapy or antiarrhythmic medication in this population, a few trials have not shown survival benefit. This review examines the major ICD trials that provide the basis for current therapy in this rapidly changing and very important area of cardiology.     

Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy necessary to make prophylactic ICD or amiodarone therapy cost-effective in patients with myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Markov model-based cost utility analysis. DATA SOURCES: Survival, cardiac death, and inpatient costs were estimated on the basis of the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention registry. Other data were derived from the literature. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with past myocardial infarction who did not have sustained ventricular arrhythmia. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: ICD or amiodarone compared with no treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, number needed to treat, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with no treatment, ICD use led to the greatest QALYs and the highest expenditures. Amiodarone use resulted in intermediate QALYs and costs. To obtain acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds (相似文献   

Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in pediatric patients

Pediatric pacing presents peculiar challenges and characteristics due to the peculiarity of children and adolescents, above all the somatic growth, but also the active lifestyle, the susceptibility to infections, and the generally anticipated long survival. In contrast, pacemaker (PM) generator and leads are designed for adult patients. Studies concerning children with PM are usually small, disomogeneous and without control groups. Large studies are rare. Moreover, concerns have been raised about long-term outcome of leads, ventricular and valvular dysfunction, venous patency, cosmetic results and psychological factors. So, it is still debated which systems have to be preferred, between the endocardial and the epicardial with steroid-eluting leads. Pediatric PM and (ICDs) show good results, but complications are still frequent, generally lead related, and often require reinterventions. As a general rule, less leads are implanted in children, less complications will occur in the future, and the simplest pacing system (generally, single-chamber PM) has better outcome. The creation of an atrial loop might allow the 'elongation' of the lead with the growth. Endocardial and epicardial pacing with steroid-eluting leads have comparable electrical performances, expecially in absence of other congenital heart defects and previous heart surgery, although endocardial pacing shows the best outcomes: it should be the first choice in children over 10-15 kg.     

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: the need for defibrillator back-up after an event-free first battery service-life

ICD Replacement After a Therapy‐Free First Service‐Life . Introduction: In primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, the relatively low incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) combined with the limited battery service‐life potentially results in a large group of patients who have had no benefit of the ICD during first service‐life. Data on the occurrence of VA after device replacement remain scarce. The purpose of this study was to give clinicians better insight in the dilemma whether or not to replace an ICD after an event‐free first battery service‐life. Methods and Results: All patients treated with an ICD for primary prevention who had a replacement because of battery depletion and who did not receive appropriate therapy before device replacement were included in this analysis. Of 154 primary prevention ICD patients needing replacement because of battery depletion, 114 (74%) patients (mean age 61 ± 11 years, 80% male) had not received appropriate ICD therapy for VA. Follow‐up was 71 ± 24 months after the initial implantation and 25 ± 21 months after device replacement. Following replacement, 3‐year cumulative incidence of appropriate therapy in response to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was 14% (95% CI 5–22%). Conclusion: The majority of primary prevention ICD patients do not experience VA during first battery service‐life. However, a substantial part of these patients does experience appropriate ICD therapy after replacement. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 1346‐1350, December 2011)