Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review
Randomized trials inform the use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death, yet management of patients considering ICD generator replacement procedures remains largely dependent on clinical judgment. Thus, we performed a systematic review of all studies...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Heart rhythm 2020-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1036-1042 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1042 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1036 |
container_title | Heart rhythm |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | McCarthy, Killian J. Locke, Andrew H. Coletti, Margo Young, Diane Merchant, Faisal M. Kramer, Daniel B. |
description | Randomized trials inform the use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death, yet management of patients considering ICD generator replacement procedures remains largely dependent on clinical judgment. Thus, we performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating outcomes associated with ICD generator replacement. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies with a prespecified search and adjudication strategy (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018100818) to evaluate outcomes including (1) survival; (2) clinical complications (eg, infection, hematoma); or (3) incidence of ICD therapy. From 1607 unique titles, 37 studies met inclusion criteria, describing outcomes for 238,949 patients. Procedural mortality was rare, but complications including reoperation (median 4.57%; range 0.38%–10.31%), infections (median 2.01%; range 0.03%–9.27%), and hematoma (median 1.22%, range 0.17%–2.53%) were observed in a small fraction of patients. Appropriate ICD therapy after generator replacement was common (median rate 23.03%; range 10.9%–31.4%), with an overall annualized event rate of 8.52% at median duration of follow-up of 32.4 months. Appropriate ICD therapy continued to occur at a significant annual rate even in patients who no longer met implantation criteria (5.27%) and in patients who never previously received ICD therapy (4.87%). This analysis of published observational data regarding ICD generator replacement procedures identifies relatively low risks of procedural complications and clinically meaningful rates of appropriate ICD therapies. These estimates may guide clinical decisions and inform the design of definitive trials. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.01.005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2338076685</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1547527120300096</els_id><sourcerecordid>2338076685</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-2cb51bda6123c7fbd71c13b38d1bcf9b755c1ef7b097f5e4aae7fd1b38c7b0033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1O3TAQx62qVfk8ARLKspsET4zjpFIXCJWChMSmXVv-GIOfkvhhOyB23KEX6Fl6FE5SPx7tsiuP7N_fM_Mj5AhoAxS6k1VzF_Pd1LS0pQ2FhlL-juwC513NegHvN_WpqHkrYIfspbSitB06yj6SHQYDAxBsl9zfLNmECVPlwjiGRz_fVn5aj2rOSo9YGRWtDw8YM8aX558WndfRj6PKIVa3OGN8rSKWiMEJ51z5uVJ2GXP6XJ39_pWeUsZJZW8K9ODx8YB8cGpMePh27pMfF1-_n1_W1zffrs7PrmvD-JDr1mgO2qoOWmaE01aAAaZZb0EbN2jBuQF0QtNBOI6nSqFw5Y31ptxRxvbJp-2_6xjuF0xZTj4ZLKPPGJYkW8Z6Krqu5wVlW9TEkFJEJ9fRTyo-SaBy41qu5KtruXEtKcjiuqSO3xosekL7L_NXbgG-bAEsa5bVo0zG42zQ-ogmSxv8fxv8ASogltA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2338076685</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>McCarthy, Killian J. ; Locke, Andrew H. ; Coletti, Margo ; Young, Diane ; Merchant, Faisal M. ; Kramer, Daniel B.</creator><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, Killian J. ; Locke, Andrew H. ; Coletti, Margo ; Young, Diane ; Merchant, Faisal M. ; Kramer, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><description>Randomized trials inform the use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death, yet management of patients considering ICD generator replacement procedures remains largely dependent on clinical judgment. Thus, we performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating outcomes associated with ICD generator replacement. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies with a prespecified search and adjudication strategy (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018100818) to evaluate outcomes including (1) survival; (2) clinical complications (eg, infection, hematoma); or (3) incidence of ICD therapy. From 1607 unique titles, 37 studies met inclusion criteria, describing outcomes for 238,949 patients. Procedural mortality was rare, but complications including reoperation (median 4.57%; range 0.38%–10.31%), infections (median 2.01%; range 0.03%–9.27%), and hematoma (median 1.22%, range 0.17%–2.53%) were observed in a small fraction of patients. Appropriate ICD therapy after generator replacement was common (median rate 23.03%; range 10.9%–31.4%), with an overall annualized event rate of 8.52% at median duration of follow-up of 32.4 months. Appropriate ICD therapy continued to occur at a significant annual rate even in patients who no longer met implantation criteria (5.27%) and in patients who never previously received ICD therapy (4.87%). This analysis of published observational data regarding ICD generator replacement procedures identifies relatively low risks of procedural complications and clinically meaningful rates of appropriate ICD therapies. These estimates may guide clinical decisions and inform the design of definitive trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1547-5271</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-3871</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.01.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31931173</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Health policy ; Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator ; Outcomes research ; Shared decision-making ; Sudden cardiac death</subject><ispartof>Heart rhythm, 2020-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1036-1042</ispartof><rights>2020 Heart Rhythm Society</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-2cb51bda6123c7fbd71c13b38d1bcf9b755c1ef7b097f5e4aae7fd1b38c7b0033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-2cb51bda6123c7fbd71c13b38d1bcf9b755c1ef7b097f5e4aae7fd1b38c7b0033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.01.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31931173$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, Killian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Locke, Andrew H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coletti, Margo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merchant, Faisal M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><title>Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review</title><title>Heart rhythm</title><addtitle>Heart Rhythm</addtitle><description>Randomized trials inform the use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death, yet management of patients considering ICD generator replacement procedures remains largely dependent on clinical judgment. Thus, we performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating outcomes associated with ICD generator replacement. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies with a prespecified search and adjudication strategy (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018100818) to evaluate outcomes including (1) survival; (2) clinical complications (eg, infection, hematoma); or (3) incidence of ICD therapy. From 1607 unique titles, 37 studies met inclusion criteria, describing outcomes for 238,949 patients. Procedural mortality was rare, but complications including reoperation (median 4.57%; range 0.38%–10.31%), infections (median 2.01%; range 0.03%–9.27%), and hematoma (median 1.22%, range 0.17%–2.53%) were observed in a small fraction of patients. Appropriate ICD therapy after generator replacement was common (median rate 23.03%; range 10.9%–31.4%), with an overall annualized event rate of 8.52% at median duration of follow-up of 32.4 months. Appropriate ICD therapy continued to occur at a significant annual rate even in patients who no longer met implantation criteria (5.27%) and in patients who never previously received ICD therapy (4.87%). This analysis of published observational data regarding ICD generator replacement procedures identifies relatively low risks of procedural complications and clinically meaningful rates of appropriate ICD therapies. These estimates may guide clinical decisions and inform the design of definitive trials.</description><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator</subject><subject>Outcomes research</subject><subject>Shared decision-making</subject><subject>Sudden cardiac death</subject><issn>1547-5271</issn><issn>1556-3871</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1O3TAQx62qVfk8ARLKspsET4zjpFIXCJWChMSmXVv-GIOfkvhhOyB23KEX6Fl6FE5SPx7tsiuP7N_fM_Mj5AhoAxS6k1VzF_Pd1LS0pQ2FhlL-juwC513NegHvN_WpqHkrYIfspbSitB06yj6SHQYDAxBsl9zfLNmECVPlwjiGRz_fVn5aj2rOSo9YGRWtDw8YM8aX558WndfRj6PKIVa3OGN8rSKWiMEJ51z5uVJ2GXP6XJ39_pWeUsZJZW8K9ODx8YB8cGpMePh27pMfF1-_n1_W1zffrs7PrmvD-JDr1mgO2qoOWmaE01aAAaZZb0EbN2jBuQF0QtNBOI6nSqFw5Y31ptxRxvbJp-2_6xjuF0xZTj4ZLKPPGJYkW8Z6Krqu5wVlW9TEkFJEJ9fRTyo-SaBy41qu5KtruXEtKcjiuqSO3xosekL7L_NXbgG-bAEsa5bVo0zG42zQ-ogmSxv8fxv8ASogltA</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>McCarthy, Killian J.</creator><creator>Locke, Andrew H.</creator><creator>Coletti, Margo</creator><creator>Young, Diane</creator><creator>Merchant, Faisal M.</creator><creator>Kramer, Daniel B.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review</title><author>McCarthy, Killian J. ; Locke, Andrew H. ; Coletti, Margo ; Young, Diane ; Merchant, Faisal M. ; Kramer, Daniel B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-2cb51bda6123c7fbd71c13b38d1bcf9b755c1ef7b097f5e4aae7fd1b38c7b0033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator</topic><topic>Outcomes research</topic><topic>Shared decision-making</topic><topic>Sudden cardiac death</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, Killian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Locke, Andrew H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coletti, Margo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merchant, Faisal M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Heart rhythm</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McCarthy, Killian J.</au><au>Locke, Andrew H.</au><au>Coletti, Margo</au><au>Young, Diane</au><au>Merchant, Faisal M.</au><au>Kramer, Daniel B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Heart rhythm</jtitle><addtitle>Heart Rhythm</addtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1036</spage><epage>1042</epage><pages>1036-1042</pages><issn>1547-5271</issn><eissn>1556-3871</eissn><abstract>Randomized trials inform the use of implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death, yet management of patients considering ICD generator replacement procedures remains largely dependent on clinical judgment. Thus, we performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating outcomes associated with ICD generator replacement. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies with a prespecified search and adjudication strategy (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018100818) to evaluate outcomes including (1) survival; (2) clinical complications (eg, infection, hematoma); or (3) incidence of ICD therapy. From 1607 unique titles, 37 studies met inclusion criteria, describing outcomes for 238,949 patients. Procedural mortality was rare, but complications including reoperation (median 4.57%; range 0.38%–10.31%), infections (median 2.01%; range 0.03%–9.27%), and hematoma (median 1.22%, range 0.17%–2.53%) were observed in a small fraction of patients. Appropriate ICD therapy after generator replacement was common (median rate 23.03%; range 10.9%–31.4%), with an overall annualized event rate of 8.52% at median duration of follow-up of 32.4 months. Appropriate ICD therapy continued to occur at a significant annual rate even in patients who no longer met implantation criteria (5.27%) and in patients who never previously received ICD therapy (4.87%). This analysis of published observational data regarding ICD generator replacement procedures identifies relatively low risks of procedural complications and clinically meaningful rates of appropriate ICD therapies. These estimates may guide clinical decisions and inform the design of definitive trials.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31931173</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.01.005</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1547-5271 |
ispartof | Heart rhythm, 2020-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1036-1042 |
issn | 1547-5271 1556-3871 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2338076685 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Health policy Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator Outcomes research Shared decision-making Sudden cardiac death |
title | Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T21%3A44%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcomes%20following%20implantable%20cardioverter%E2%80%93defibrillator%20generator%20replacement%20in%20adults:%20A%C2%A0systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Heart%20rhythm&rft.au=McCarthy,%20Killian%20J.&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1036&rft.epage=1042&rft.pages=1036-1042&rft.issn=1547-5271&rft.eissn=1556-3871&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.01.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2338076685%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2338076685&rft_id=info:pmid/31931173&rft_els_id=S1547527120300096&rfr_iscdi=true |