Patient characteristics and in-hospital complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for Brugada syndrome in Japan.
Brugada syndrome
complication
subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator
transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator
ventricular fibrillation
Journal
Journal of arrhythmia
ISSN: 1880-4276
Titre abrégé: J Arrhythm
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101263026
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
06
08
2019
revised:
19
08
2019
accepted:
23
08
2019
entrez:
18
12
2019
pubmed:
18
12
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clinical features and complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation for Brugada syndrome have not been well studied. We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database to retrospectively investigate patients who had undergone ICD implantation between April 2016 and March 2017. We compared the characteristics and in-hospital complications of patients with Brugada syndrome implanted with S-ICD or transvenous (TV)-ICD. We extracted 3090 patients who received ICD implantation. Among them, we identified 278 Brugada patients. The mean age was 43 ± 14.4 years and 262 (94%) were male. Of these 278 patients, 136 (49%) received S-ICD and 142 (51%) received TV-ICD. TV-ICD recipients had a history of atrial fibrillation more frequently compared with S-ICD recipients. The median (interquartile range) of length of hospital stay was not significantly different between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (13 days [10-20.5] vs 12 days [10-18], respectively). The prevalence of in-hospital complications after ICD implantation was similar between the two groups. There were no patients with cardiac tamponade, hemothorax, pneumothorax, cardiovascular event, stroke, and death following the procedure during hospitalization in either group. Short-term safety of S-ICD implantation may be identical to that of TV-ICD. Large prospective studies are warranted to compare the effects and long-term safety of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clinical features and complications of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation for Brugada syndrome have not been well studied.
METHODS
METHODS
We used the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database to retrospectively investigate patients who had undergone ICD implantation between April 2016 and March 2017. We compared the characteristics and in-hospital complications of patients with Brugada syndrome implanted with S-ICD or transvenous (TV)-ICD.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We extracted 3090 patients who received ICD implantation. Among them, we identified 278 Brugada patients. The mean age was 43 ± 14.4 years and 262 (94%) were male. Of these 278 patients, 136 (49%) received S-ICD and 142 (51%) received TV-ICD. TV-ICD recipients had a history of atrial fibrillation more frequently compared with S-ICD recipients. The median (interquartile range) of length of hospital stay was not significantly different between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (13 days [10-20.5] vs 12 days [10-18], respectively). The prevalence of in-hospital complications after ICD implantation was similar between the two groups. There were no patients with cardiac tamponade, hemothorax, pneumothorax, cardiovascular event, stroke, and death following the procedure during hospitalization in either group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Short-term safety of S-ICD implantation may be identical to that of TV-ICD. Large prospective studies are warranted to compare the effects and long-term safety of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31844476
doi: 10.1002/joa3.12234
pii: JOA312234
pmc: PMC6898525
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
842-847Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interests for this article.
Références
HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2016 May 13;2(5):391-394
pubmed: 28491718
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14(10):1456-1463
pubmed: 28502872
Eur Heart J. 2014 Jul 1;35(25):1657-65
pubmed: 24670710
J Electrocardiol. 2000;33 Suppl:41-7
pubmed: 11265735
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 15;70(7):830-841
pubmed: 28797351
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 8;68(19):2047-2055
pubmed: 27810043
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Jan;3(1):57-67
pubmed: 29759696
J Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):476-482
pubmed: 28142051
J Arrhythm. 2019 Sep 16;35(6):842-847
pubmed: 31844476
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992 Nov 15;20(6):1391-6
pubmed: 1309182
Heart Rhythm. 2013 Jan;10(1):29-36
pubmed: 23032867
Europace. 2018 Feb 1;20(2):308-314
pubmed: 28383717
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Feb;13(2):443-54
pubmed: 26385533
JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;1(8):900-911
pubmed: 27603935
Circulation. 2003 May 6;107(17):2221-6
pubmed: 12695290
Circulation. 2006 Nov 28;114(22):2317-24
pubmed: 17116772
Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1130-9
pubmed: 16224307
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;222:163-170
pubmed: 27494730
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017 Dec;28(12):1454-1459
pubmed: 28800177
Circulation. 2013 Aug 27;128(9):944-53
pubmed: 23979626
J Arrhythm. 2016 Oct;32(5):315-339
pubmed: 27761155
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;179:315-20
pubmed: 25464474