植入型心律转复除颤器10例的临床随访

缺血性心肌病心脏性猝死（SCD）的直接原因大多为室性心动过速（室速）或心室颤动（室颤），尤其合并左心室功能减退的心力衰竭时，SCD的发生率明显增高。植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）同时具有电击复律和抗心动过速起搏治疗的功能，国外的大规模多中心临床研究表明ICD能够显著降低SCD的发生。我院联合浙江医院自2003年以来用ICD治疗此类患者，取得较好疗效，现报告如下。     

埋藏式心律转复除颤器治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效观察

全球每年突发性心脏骤停的人数为300万，平均生还率〈1％。美国每年约有70万患者死于心脏病，其中46万是心脏性猝死。在心脏性猝死中，单形性室性心动过速（室速）占62％，心室颤动（室颤）占8％，尖端扭转型室速占13％。国外多项大型临床试验已证实，埋藏式心律转复除颤器（ICD）是治疗恶性心律失常的最有效的方法，可有效预防心脏性猝死。本研究旨在观察恶性室性心律失常患者ICD治疗的疗效随访及并发症。     

T波电交替在心脏性猝死预警中的应用——应用T波电交替预警心脏性猝死在中国势在必行

心脏性猝死（Sudden cardiac death，SCD）是一个威胁公共卫生健康的重要社会问题。美国流行病学调查表明，SCD是仅次于各种肿瘤所致死亡的第二大死亡原因。美国平均每年约有45万例心脏性猝死患者。研究证实，约88％的心脏性猝死原因为心律失常，其中恶性室性心律失常最多，约占83％。在发生致命性室性心律失常的人群中，冠心病为主要病因，约占80％。临床研究显示，针对心脏性猝死的高危人群，给予抗心律失常药物治疗不能有效防止SCD。近年来应用ICD一级和二级预防SCD的临床研究证实：ICD可显著减少SCD的死亡率。     

埋藏式心脏复律除颤器(ICD):目前认识和建议

致命性室性心律失常 (室性心动过速 /心室颤动 ,ＶＴ/ＶＦ)是心脏性猝死 (ＳＣＤ)的主要原因 ,美国每年约 40万人死于此症。一系列多中心临床试验证明埋藏式心脏复律除颤器 (ＩＣＤ)是优于药物的有效治疗方法 ,明显降低ＳＣＤ发生率。美国每年上万人安装ＩＣＤ ,其数量呈直线上升趋势。我国由于经济条件和认识水平普及的限制 ,采用ＩＣＤ治疗的患者甚少 ,但近年来逐渐增多 ,一年约 1 0 0例患者安装ＩＣＤ。为提高医生和病人对应用ＩＣＤ的认识及使用规范化 ,两个学会的ＩＣＤ专家组于 2 0 0 1年 1 1月在北京召开研讨会 ,就ＩＣＤ适应证、多…     

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％。     

积极开展恶性室性心律失常导管消融治疗以预防心脏性猝死

植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）能够迅速、有效转复室性心动过速（室速）／心室颤动（室颤）。20世纪90年代以来的多个心脏性猝死（SCD）的二级预防和一级预防多中心试验中ICD被证明是惟一可靠的心脏性猝死的预防方法（AHA、ACC、ESC2006心脏性猝死指南）。但是ICD至今未能在发展中国家（包括中国）被广泛使用。主要原因除了有实践经验的医生和医院数目有限、患者及其家庭受传统观念的约束不愿在体内植入异物、ICD放电时常引起的疼痛和患者的恐惧心理等以外，ICD器械的昂贵可能是最重要的制约因素。     

恶性室性心律失常的非药物治疗

恶性室性心律失常指伴有血流动力学紊乱的反复发作的持续性室性心动过速(VT)、心室扑动与心室颤动(VF),常导致心脏性猝死(SCD).SCD是最常见的心脏性死亡,美国每年约有32.5万人发生SCD,大部分均患有器质性心脏病,其中80％是冠心病,约80％由VT或VF引起,但约4％的VT患者无器质性心脏病.左心功能不良患者死亡中约50％为VT或VF所致的SCD[1].中国每年约有54.4万人发生SCD,冠心病是主要病因(约70％)[2].防治SCD是当今心血管领域研究的重点与热点之一.近十余年来抗心律失常药物(AAD)研究进展不大,不尽人意.令人欣慰和鼓舞的是随着电子、无线通讯、计算机、遥测遥感及生物医学工程等科学的迅猛发展,恶性室性心律失常的非药物治疗有了长足的进展,取得了傲人的成就,挽救了无数的生命.近年恶性心律失常非药物治疗进展主要有植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)和导管消融等.     

加强植入型心律转复除颤器的临床应用是面临的迫切任务

心脏性猝死(sudden cardiac death，SCD)是心血管疾病的主要死亡原因之一，占心血管病死亡总数的二分之一以上。SCD大多是由恶性室性心律失常如室性心动过速(室速)、心室颤动(室颤)引起的。植入型心律转复除颤器(implantable cardioverter defibrillator，ICD)可以在患者发生室颤时自动放电除颤拯救患者的生命。ICD的应用和发展已经对SCD的治疗产生了深远的影响。SCD的二级预防临床试验已充分证明，与药物治疗相比，ICD能明显降低SCD高危患者的病死率，是目前防止SCD的最有效方法。     

植入型心律转复除颤器的护理

恶性心律失常,尤其是持续性室性心动过速（VT）、心室颤动（VF）均是发生心源性猝死（suddencardiac death,SCD）的主要原因,且多发生在院外,约占心源性猝死的87％。植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）可及时识别并有效终止恶性室性心律失常的发作,降低SCD的发生率,其疗效明显优于单纯抗心律失常药物治疗,现已成为临床预防恶性心律失常的重要手段,最终的目的是降低死亡率,已成为SCD一二级预防的最有效方法。     

T波电交替概述

心脏性猝死是心血管疾病的主要死亡原因（SCD）。2006年中国SCD流行病学调查显示我国SCD发生率为0．04％，若以13亿人口推算，我国SCD总人数约为54．4万／年。心律失常是绝大多数SCD的直接原因，80％以上是有血流动力学障碍的室速或室颤，即恶性室性心律失常。虽然大规模临床试验已证明ICD预防SCD的效果明显优于抗心律失常药物，是预防SCD高危患者发生猝死的最有效方法，但ICD价格昂贵，国内应用数量非常有限。     

单中心植入埋藏式心脏转复除颤器患者的随访

目的了解本中心植入埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)/双室同步起搏+除颤器(CRT-D)患者的临床特征,并进行长期随访以期了解其患者的预后和转归。方法对57例植入ICD/CRT-D的患者,其中一级预防23例,二级预防34例,收集其基本资料及相关病史,记录入院期间检查结果及治疗情况,并对其死亡率和恶性室性心律失常发生率进行随访。结果一级预防恶性心律失常发生率低于二级预防(21.7%vs 43.8%),所有患者无心律失常死亡,治疗成功率近100%。结论 ICD/CRT-D能减低患者恶性心律失常死亡。     

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have been increasingly used in adult patients for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The usefulness and feasibility of ICD implantation in children have been less well established. AIM: To analyse indications, results and safety of ICD therapy in children. METHODS: ICDs were implanted in seven children, aged from 6 to 17 years. All patients underwent cardiological evaluation which included analysis of medical history, physical examination, chest X-ray, standard ECG, 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring and echocardiography. RESULTS: In five children devices were implanted due to aborted sudden death (ventricular fibrillation) whereas in the remaining two - as a primary prevention of SCD. Three children had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, one - dilated cardiomyopathy, one - mitral valve prolapse and QT prolongation, one - congenital long QT syndrome and the remaining patient - idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. Single-chamber devices were implanted in six children, and dual-chamber system - in one patient. In all patients endocardial leads were implanted and ICD pocket was formed under the greater pectoral muscle. During follow-up ranging between four months to 5.4 years, four children developed ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia which were terminated by appropriate ICD discharges. CONCLUSIONS: 1. ICD implantation in children is effective in the prevention of SCD. 2. In our population, the most frequent indications for device implantation were life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias occurring in patients with cardiomyopathy. 3. Cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation may occur in children without a history of aborted SCD. 4. ICD implantation in children is feasible and safe.     

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.     

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a review of the evidence and implications

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) claims approximately 460,000 lives per year in the United States, and half of these deaths occur in people with a history of coronary artery disease. Patients with left ventricular dysfunction and a history of myocardial infarction are at especially high risk. There is now strong evidence from multiple well-designed randomized controlled trials that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives when used for both primary and secondary prevention. As indications for ICD implantation have broadened, considerable debate has taken place because of the substantial cost involved in widespread ICD utilization. This article summarizes the epidemiology of SCD, reviews the evidence supporting the use of ICDs in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, and explores some of the controversy surrounding ICD utilization that has arisen in the wake of recent trials that have utilized ICDs for the primary prevention of SCD.     

The incidence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator indications in patients admitted to all coronary care units in a single district.

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality in groups of patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. The true incidence of ICD indications is unknown but we hypothesize that it far exceeds the number actually implanted. METHODS: In a one month observational audit, we reviewed the clinical records of all 336 patients admitted to coronary care units serving a district with a population of 471,000, to determine the additional screening tests required in myocardial infarction (MI) survivors and the number of additional ICDs which would be implanted for the primary and secondary prevention indications recommended in UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. A further analysis was performed to determine the effect of extending the primary prevention indications to include the selection criteria used in the second multicentre automatic defibrillator trial, MADIT II. RESULTS: Using NICE criteria, we found the incidence of ICD indications to be 98.4/10(6)/year. The addition of patients fulfilling MADIT II selection criteria for primary prevention would have increased this to 453/10(6)/year. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the implementation of national guidance on the use of ICDs for arrhythmias will require the systematic screening of MI survivors, and would identify an incidence of ICD indications at least three times that anticipated by NICE, and eight times as many as were actually implanted in the UK in 2000. If the primary prevention indications were widened to include MADIT II selection criteria, the total would be nearer to 12 times that anticipated, and 47 times the number actually implanted.     

Sudden cardiac death: Epidemiologic and financial worldwide perspective

The term sudden cardiac death (SCD) implies the sudden and unexpected loss of an active, productive member of the community. SCD is typically attributed to lethal ventricular arrhythmias; however, these arrhythmias are impossible to diagnose after the fact. Epidemiologic analyses, therefore, rely on inference of the cause of death. Estimates of the incidence of are SCD variable but it may be as high as 1 per 1,000 per year. The cost of SCD to society is incalculable. Current strategies for preventing SCD rely on risk assessment for cardiology patients and implantation of defibrillators (ICD) in high risk patients. Unfortunately, the absolute number of SCDs that occur in the general (relatively low-risk) population is large compared to the number of SCDs in the high risk population. Therefore, prevention of SCD in high risk populations is unlikely to prevent the majority of SCDs. Cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation for prevention of SCD has been studied; ICDs appear to meet U.S. and European criteria for cost-effectiveness if their benefit extends to at least 7–8 years. However, therapies considered cost-effective may nonetheless be too costly for most worldwide societies. Currently, investigators are focusing on refining risk stratification, partly in hopes of identifying patients for whom ICD implantation will not be useful.     

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.     

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy for Life-Threatening Arrhythmias in Young Patients

Objectives: This study examined the indications, efficacy and outcomes of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use in the pediatric population. Background: ICDs are first-line therapy for adults resuscitated from sudden cardiac death (SCD) or at high risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Use of ICDs in children and young adults is infrequent and there are few data regarding this group. Methods: We abstracted and analyzed data for all patients in whom ICDs were implanted. Results: A total of 38 devices were implanted in 27 patients. Age ranged from 6 to 26 years (mean, 14) and weight ranged from 16 to 124 kg (mean, 47). Diagnoses included long QT syndrome (9), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [6], repaired congenital heart disease [5];, and idiopathic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation [4]. Indications comprised resuscitated SCD [15], syncope [9], and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia [3]. Initial device placement was infraclavicular in 13, abdominal in 13 and intrathoracic in 1. Epicardial leads were used with 5 systems. A single coil lead was used in 17. Seven patients, all previously resuscitated from SCD, experienced 88 appropriate successful discharges. There were 6 inappropriate discharges in 3 patients. Mean time to device replacement was 3.1 years (n = 11). Complications included 2 infected systems, 2 lead dislodgments, 2 lead fractures, 1 post-pericardiotomy syndrome, 1 adverse event with defibrillation threshold (DFT); testing, and 1 patient with psychiatric sequelae. No deaths occurred with implanted ICDs. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that ICDs provide safe and effective therapy in young patients. The indications for ICDs as primary preventive therapy remain uncertain.     

Ventricular Arrhythmias in the North American Multidisciplinary Study of ARVC : Predictors,Characteristics, and Treatment

Background

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is associated with sudden cardiac death. However, the selection of patients for implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), as well as programming of the ICD, is unclear.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify predictors, characteristics, and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ARVC.

Methods

The Multidisciplinary Study of Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy established the North American ARVC Registry and enrolled patients with a diagnosis of ARVC. Patients were followed prospectively.

Results

Of 137 patients enrolled, 108 received ICDs. Forty-eight patients had 502 sustained episodes of ventricular arrhythmias, including 489 that were monomorphic and 13 that were polymorphic. In the patients with ICDs, independent predictors of ventricular arrhythmias in follow-up included spontaneous sustained ventricular arrhythmias before ICD implantation and T-wave inversions inferiorly. The only independent predictor for life-threatening arrhythmias, defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥240 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation, was a younger age at enrollment. Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), independent of the cycle length of the VT, was successful in terminating 92% of VT episodes.

Conclusions

In the North American ARVC Registry, the majority of ventricular arrhythmias in follow-up are monomorphic. Risk factors for ventricular arrhythmias were spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias before enrollment and a younger age at ICD implantation. ATP is highly successful in terminating VT, and all ICDs should be programmed for ATP, even for rapid VT.     

ICD-Therapie

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains the leading common cause for overall mortality in the industrialized world. Although prediction of SCD is considered a necessary prerequisite for its effective prevention and therapy, hard criteria for that goal are difficult to identify. A number of clinical trials were conducted to define the role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing SCD. In addition to its undisputed value in secondary prevention of SCD, study results have proven a reduction of mortality through ICDs in patients with both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). To date, national and international guidelines help us to apply standard ICD indications in patients with structural or hereditary heart diseases that are associated with increased SCD risk. Yet we know that our strategies currently in use for selecting patients who require ICD therapy are imperfect and leave a large number of high-risk patients unprotected. Therefore, the best possible risk assessment should be used in each individual case for optimal SCD prevention without unnecessary device implantation.