Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023001%3A_____%2F16%3A00060004" target="_blank" >RIV/00023001:_____/16:00060004 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jce.12952/epdf" target="_blank" >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jce.12952/epdf</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.12952" target="_blank" >10.1111/jce.12952</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    ICD Lead Position and Outcome. Introduction: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. Methods and Results: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity scorematched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location. Conclusion: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Apical versus non-apical lead: Is ICD lead position important for successful defibrillation?

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    ICD Lead Position and Outcome. Introduction: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. Methods and Results: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity scorematched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location. Conclusion: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>x</sub> - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

  • CEP obor

    FA - Kardiovaskulární nemoci včetně kardiochirurgie

  • OECD FORD obor

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2016

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology

  • ISSN

    1045-3873

  • e-ISSN

  • Svazek periodika

    27

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    5

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    US - Spojené státy americké

  • Počet stran výsledku

    6

  • Strana od-do

    581-586

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    000378397900011

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus