Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) related to ventricular arrhythmias is the most disastrous consequence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Hence, clinicians seek to identify the highest risk patients that have the greatest potential to benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for pri...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology 2021, Vol.60 (1), p.1-7 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 7 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology |
| container_volume | 60 |
| creator | Aminorroaya, Arya Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali Masoudkabir, Farzad Roayaei, Pegah |
| description | Sudden cardiac death (SCD) related to ventricular arrhythmias is the most disastrous consequence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Hence, clinicians seek to identify the highest risk patients that have the greatest potential to benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention; nonetheless, this is where controversies begin as the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association and the 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines have significant discrepancies. These guidelines propose clinically and statistically oriented algorithms, respectively, for SCD risk stratification of patients with HCM and recommendation to implantation of primary prevention ICD. The differences between these guidelines have resulted in confusion among care practitioners and patients alike. In this communication, we tried to criticize the statistical viewpoint in terms of clinical outcomes and suggest the more beneficial model. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2427524967</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2427524967</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-73eb5bd915a66853a206033881811b542c9a08c8de160cdcb6d68bcaad454f5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1qFTEYhgdRbK3egAsJuHEzNv-TcSetVqEgiIK7kJ9vOikzkzHJWM_1eKOmnqMVFy5CPsjzPkl4m-YpwS8Jxt1pJlhx3GJaF1asa_m95piIjrZK9OJ-nZlirerEl6PmUc7XGOMeU_mwOWK0I7TH-Lj58RFcnGdYvCkhLhnFAZURkNtSgqWgqy14mMICGQ0xoTCvk1mKsVNFTPIhfoNUILUehmBTmCZT_sJulSgsaK1TtWV0E8qIxt1aQymuY3AHy7yLlRl3r9A5WFMA5VJdCL6HXPLj5sFgpgxPDvtJ8_ntm09n79rLDxfvz15fto5RWdqOgRXW90QYKZVghmKJGVOKKEKs4NT1BiunPBCJnXdWeqmsM8ZzwQfh2UnzYu9dU_y6QS56DtlB_dMCccuactoJynvZVfT5P-h13NJSX1cpxTjtCZWVonvKpZhzgkGvKcwm7TTB-rZCva9Q1wr1rwo1r6FnB_VmZ_B_Ir87qwDbA7keLVeQ7u7-j_Yn6u6rtw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2483429126</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Aminorroaya, Arya ; Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali ; Masoudkabir, Farzad ; Roayaei, Pegah</creator><creatorcontrib>Aminorroaya, Arya ; Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali ; Masoudkabir, Farzad ; Roayaei, Pegah</creatorcontrib><description>Sudden cardiac death (SCD) related to ventricular arrhythmias is the most disastrous consequence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Hence, clinicians seek to identify the highest risk patients that have the greatest potential to benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention; nonetheless, this is where controversies begin as the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association and the 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines have significant discrepancies. These guidelines propose clinically and statistically oriented algorithms, respectively, for SCD risk stratification of patients with HCM and recommendation to implantation of primary prevention ICD. The differences between these guidelines have resulted in confusion among care practitioners and patients alike. In this communication, we tried to criticize the statistical viewpoint in terms of clinical outcomes and suggest the more beneficial model.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1383-875X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8595</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32712900</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Cardiology ; Cardiomyopathy ; Cardiovascular diseases ; Commentary ; Defibrillators ; Guidelines ; Implantation ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Prevention ; Ventricle</subject><ispartof>Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology, 2021, Vol.60 (1), p.1-7</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-73eb5bd915a66853a206033881811b542c9a08c8de160cdcb6d68bcaad454f5d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32712900$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aminorroaya, Arya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masoudkabir, Farzad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roayaei, Pegah</creatorcontrib><title>Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists</title><title>Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology</title><addtitle>J Interv Card Electrophysiol</addtitle><addtitle>J Interv Card Electrophysiol</addtitle><description>Sudden cardiac death (SCD) related to ventricular arrhythmias is the most disastrous consequence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Hence, clinicians seek to identify the highest risk patients that have the greatest potential to benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention; nonetheless, this is where controversies begin as the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association and the 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines have significant discrepancies. These guidelines propose clinically and statistically oriented algorithms, respectively, for SCD risk stratification of patients with HCM and recommendation to implantation of primary prevention ICD. The differences between these guidelines have resulted in confusion among care practitioners and patients alike. In this communication, we tried to criticize the statistical viewpoint in terms of clinical outcomes and suggest the more beneficial model.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Cardiomyopathy</subject><subject>Cardiovascular diseases</subject><subject>Commentary</subject><subject>Defibrillators</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Implantation</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Ventricle</subject><issn>1383-875X</issn><issn>1572-8595</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1qFTEYhgdRbK3egAsJuHEzNv-TcSetVqEgiIK7kJ9vOikzkzHJWM_1eKOmnqMVFy5CPsjzPkl4m-YpwS8Jxt1pJlhx3GJaF1asa_m95piIjrZK9OJ-nZlirerEl6PmUc7XGOMeU_mwOWK0I7TH-Lj58RFcnGdYvCkhLhnFAZURkNtSgqWgqy14mMICGQ0xoTCvk1mKsVNFTPIhfoNUILUehmBTmCZT_sJulSgsaK1TtWV0E8qIxt1aQymuY3AHy7yLlRl3r9A5WFMA5VJdCL6HXPLj5sFgpgxPDvtJ8_ntm09n79rLDxfvz15fto5RWdqOgRXW90QYKZVghmKJGVOKKEKs4NT1BiunPBCJnXdWeqmsM8ZzwQfh2UnzYu9dU_y6QS56DtlB_dMCccuactoJynvZVfT5P-h13NJSX1cpxTjtCZWVonvKpZhzgkGvKcwm7TTB-rZCva9Q1wr1rwo1r6FnB_VmZ_B_Ir87qwDbA7keLVeQ7u7-j_Yn6u6rtw</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Aminorroaya, Arya</creator><creator>Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali</creator><creator>Masoudkabir, Farzad</creator><creator>Roayaei, Pegah</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists</title><author>Aminorroaya, Arya ; Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali ; Masoudkabir, Farzad ; Roayaei, Pegah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-73eb5bd915a66853a206033881811b542c9a08c8de160cdcb6d68bcaad454f5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Cardiomyopathy</topic><topic>Cardiovascular diseases</topic><topic>Commentary</topic><topic>Defibrillators</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Implantation</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Ventricle</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aminorroaya, Arya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masoudkabir, Farzad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roayaei, Pegah</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aminorroaya, Arya</au><au>Vasheghani-Farahani, Ali</au><au>Masoudkabir, Farzad</au><au>Roayaei, Pegah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists</atitle><jtitle>Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology</jtitle><stitle>J Interv Card Electrophysiol</stitle><addtitle>J Interv Card Electrophysiol</addtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>7</epage><pages>1-7</pages><issn>1383-875X</issn><eissn>1572-8595</eissn><abstract>Sudden cardiac death (SCD) related to ventricular arrhythmias is the most disastrous consequence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Hence, clinicians seek to identify the highest risk patients that have the greatest potential to benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention; nonetheless, this is where controversies begin as the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association and the 2014 European Society of Cardiology guidelines have significant discrepancies. These guidelines propose clinically and statistically oriented algorithms, respectively, for SCD risk stratification of patients with HCM and recommendation to implantation of primary prevention ICD. The differences between these guidelines have resulted in confusion among care practitioners and patients alike. In this communication, we tried to criticize the statistical viewpoint in terms of clinical outcomes and suggest the more beneficial model.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32712900</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1383-875X |
| ispartof | Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology, 2021, Vol.60 (1), p.1-7 |
| issn | 1383-875X 1572-8595 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2427524967 |
| source | SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Algorithms Cardiology Cardiomyopathy Cardiovascular diseases Commentary Defibrillators Guidelines Implantation Medicine Medicine & Public Health Prevention Ventricle |
| title | Recommendations of the current guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Debate still exists |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T22%3A53%3A03IST&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=Recommendations%20of%20the%20current%20guidelines%20for%20implantable%20cardioverter-defibrillator%20implantation%20in%20patients%20with%20hypertrophic%20cardiomyopathy:%20Debate%20still%20exists&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20interventional%20cardiac%20electrophysiology&rft.au=Aminorroaya,%20Arya&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=7&rft.pages=1-7&rft.issn=1383-875X&rft.eissn=1572-8595&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10840-020-00837-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2427524967%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=2483429126&rft_id=info:pmid/32712900&rfr_iscdi=true |