-
JACC. Heart Failure Oct 2016This study evaluated the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) on mortality in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) by conducting a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study evaluated the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) on mortality in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
BACKGROUND
The burden of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with LVADs is high. Prior studies assessing the impact of ICD on survival of patients with LVADs have yielded conflicting results.
METHODS
Relevant studies from January 2000 through October 2015 were identified in the databases PubMed and OVID. Weighted relative risks were estimated using random effects meta-analysis techniques.
RESULTS
Six observational studies (n = 937) were included. Patients were 53 ± 12 years of age, and 80% were male. Bridge-to-transplantation was the indication for LVAD use in 93% of the patients. A continuous-flow (CF) LVAD was present in 39% of patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 16 ± 6%. An ICD was present in 355 patients (38%). During a mean follow-up of 7 months, 241 patients (26%) died (16% in the ICD group vs. 32% in the no-ICD group). Presence of an ICD was associated with a 39% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.82; p < 0.01). Among subgroup of patients with CF-LVAD (n = 361), ICD use was associated with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward improved survival (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.12; p = 0.17).
CONCLUSIONS
ICD use was associated with a significant reduction in mortality in LVAD patients, however, this effect was not significant in patients with CF-LVADs. Although these data support the use of ICDs, larger randomized trial data are strongly warranted to evaluate ICD effectiveness in patients with current generation LVADs.
Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Cause of Death; Defibrillators, Implantable; Heart Failure; Heart-Assist Devices; Humans; Mortality; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 27395347
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.05.003 -
Cureus Oct 2023Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a significant cause of death. The chance of survival significantly increases when immediate defibrillation with an... (Review)
Review
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a significant cause of death. The chance of survival significantly increases when immediate defibrillation with an on-site automated external defibrillator (AED) is available. Our aim is to systematically evaluate the impact of public access defibrillators (PAD) on the outcomes of outpatient cardiac arrest. We conducted a systematic review of the data from global studies on the role of bystander and emergency medical service (EMS) interventions, primarily focusing on the usage of AEDs, during OHCA events. The results highlight the critical significance of PADs in improving survival outcomes in OHCA settings. The majority of OHCA incidents occurred in private residences, but public spaces such as schools and airports had better outcomes, likely due to AED accessibility and trained individuals. Placing AEDs in public areas, especially high-risk zones, can boost survival chances. Timely defibrillation, particularly by bystanders, correlated with better survival and neurological conditions. The review emphasizes the importance of widespread cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and AED training, strategic AED placement, and continuous monitoring of interventions and outcomes to enhance survival rates and neurological recovery after OHCAs. This systematic review showed that bystander interventions, including CPR and AED usage, significantly increased the survival rate. Overall, immediate response and accessibility to AEDs in public areas can significantly improve outcomes in OHCA events.
PubMed: 38021997
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47721 -
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association 2023Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) include permanent pacemakers (PPMs), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) include permanent pacemakers (PPMs), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. They treat several cardiac issues and are dependent on batteries; however, similar to any medical equipment, they can fail. The prevalence and risk factors for CIED malfunction must be understood for earlier detection and better patient outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted through electronic bibliographic sources (PubMed and Cochrane) until January 2023 in order to identify reviews, cohort studies and case reports pertaining to CIED. The primary outcome is the probability of CIED malfunction. The secondary outcome concerned significant risk factors. Two authors independently extracted articles by utilizing pre-established data fields. Using a random-effects model, the aggregated prevalence and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis comprised eight review articles, twenty-two retrospective studies, and thirty-seven case reports from the systematic review. The eight review articles contained a CIED malfunction of 4.03 % (random-effects model). The pooled prevalence of CIED malfunction in the meta-analysis of 22 retrospective studies was 0.41 percent (using a fixed-effects model) and 8.01 percent (using a random-effects model). Moreover, age, pre-existing cardiac conditions, CIED type, lead placement, and medical device interactions all contributed to an increase in the heterogeneity (I2 = 98.90 %) of the risk of CIED malfunction.
CONCLUSION
CIED malfunction is common and more likely to occur in elderly individuals and in certain types of CIED. Clinicians should focus on risk factors and closely monitor the patients with higher probability for CIED malfunction with short intervals.
PubMed: 38179411
DOI: 10.37616/2212-5043.1359 -
BMJ Open Apr 2018The importance of Cardiac Implant Registry (CIR) for ensuring a long-term follow-up in postmarket surveillance has been recognised and approved, but there is lack of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The importance of Cardiac Implant Registry (CIR) for ensuring a long-term follow-up in postmarket surveillance has been recognised and approved, but there is lack of consensus standards on how to establish a CIR. The aim of this study is to investigate the structure and key elements of CIRs in the past decade (2006-2016) and to provide recommendations on 'best practice' approaches.
SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS
A systematic search on CIR was employed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following databases were searched: the PubMed (Medline), ScienceDirect and the Scopus database, EMBASE. After identifying the existing CIRs, an aggregative approach will be used to explore key elements emerging in the identified registries.
RESULTS
The following 82 registries were identified: 18 implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) registries, 7 cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) registries, 5 pacemaker registries and 6 cardiovascular implantable electronic device registries which combined ICD, pacemaker and CRT implantation data; as well as 22 coronary stent registries and 24 transcatheteraortic heart valve implantation registries. While 71 national or local registries are from a single country, 44 are from European countries and 9 are located in USA. The following criteria have been summarised from the identified registries, including: registry working group, ethic issues, transparency, research objective, inclusion criteria, compulsory participation, endpoint, sample size, data collection basement, data collection methods, data entry, data validation and statistical analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Registries provide a 'real-world' picture for patients, physicians, manufacturers, payers, decision-makers and other stakeholders. CIRs are important for regulatory decisions concerning the safety and therefore approval issues of the medical device; for payers CIRs provide evidence on the medical device benefit and drive the decision whether the product should be reimbursed or not; for hospitals CIRs' data are important for sound procurement decisions, and CIRs also help patients and their physicians to joint decision-making which of the products is the most appropriate.
Topics: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Coronary Disease; Defibrillators, Implantable; Europe; Heart Diseases; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Pacemaker, Artificial; Prostheses and Implants; Registries; Stents; United States
PubMed: 29654008
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019039 -
Resuscitation Plus Jun 2023The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes.
METHODS
The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land ( = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies ( = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSION
The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning.
PubMed: 37424769
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100406 -
Resuscitation Plus Dec 2022Data on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is limited in Italy, and there has never been a comprehensive systematic appraisal of the available evidence. Therefore,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Data on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is limited in Italy, and there has never been a comprehensive systematic appraisal of the available evidence. Therefore, this review aims to explore the incidence, characteristics, and outcome of OHCA in Italy.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and conference proceedings up to September 23, 2022. Studies investigating OHCA in Italy and reporting at least one outcome related to cardiac arrest were considered eligible. The primary outcome was survival at the longest follow-up available. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A random-effects model proportion meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled outcomes with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
We included 42 studies (43,042 patients) from 13 of the 20 Italian regions published between 1995 and 2022. Only five studies were deemed to be at low risk of bias. The overall average incidences of OHCA attended by emergency medical services and with resuscitation attempted were 86 (range: 10-190) and 55 (range: 6-108) per 100,000 populations per year, respectively. Survival at the longest follow-up available was 9.0% (95% CI, 6.7-12%; 30 studies and 15,195 patients) in the overall population, 25% (95% CI, 21-30%; 16 studies and 2,863 patients) among patients with shockable rhythms, 28% (95% CI, 20-37%; 8 studies and 1,292 patients) among the Utstein comparator group. Favourable neurological outcome was 5.0% (95% CI, 3.6-6.6%; 16 studies and 9,675 patients). Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved in 19% (95% CI, 16-23%; 40 studies and 30,875 patients) of cases. Bystanders initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 26% (95% CI, 21-32%; 33 studies and 23,491 patients) of cases but only in 3.2% (95% CI, 1.9-4.9%; 9 studies and 8,508 patients) with an automated external defibrillator. The mean response time was 10.2 (95% CI, 8.9-11.4; 25 studies and 23,997 patients) minutes.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival after OHCA in Italy occurred in one of every ten patients. Bystanders initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation in only one-third of cases, rarely with a defibrillator. Different areas of the country collected data, but an essential part of the population was not included. There was high heterogeneity and large variation in outcomes results and reporting, limiting the confidence in the estimates of incidence and outcome. Creating and maintaining a nationwide registry is a priority.
PubMed: 36386770
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100329 -
International Journal of Cardiology.... Apr 2023To synthesise the available evidence of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy as an add-on measure to optimal medical therapy (OMT) or as a replacement of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise the available evidence of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy as an add-on measure to optimal medical therapy (OMT) or as a replacement of hospital stay.
METHODS
An update systematic review (SR) of comparative effectiveness and safety of WCD therapy was conducted. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective comparative studies and prospective uncontrolled studies with at least 100 patients. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted.
RESULTS
One RCT ( = 2348) and further eleven observational studies ( = 5345) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. In the only available RCT, the use of the WCD was not statistically associated with a clinical benefit on arrhythmic mortality in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with an ejection fraction of ≤35%. The compliance with WCD therapy was low in the RCT and high in observational studies, with ten observational studies reporting on a daily wear time between 20 and 23.5 h. The range of percentage of patients receiving at least one appropriate shock was 1-4.8% and the rate of first shock success was reported to be 100% in three studies. Serious adverse events (SAEs) such as inappropriate shocks occurred rarely, with between 0% and 2% of patients being inappropriately shocked within ten observational studies. In one of the observational studies, two patients (2%) were allergic to nickel developing skin rash and false alarms occurred in 58 patients (57%) in this study. Another registry study ( = 448) reported milder AEs, such as dermatitis and pressure marks, occurring in 0.9% and 0.2% of enrolled patients, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The only available RCT failed to show superiority of add-on use of WCD in post MI patients. Observational evidence shows that the compliance with WCD is good, but the evidence is afflicted with selection bias and the inclusion of diverse mixed patient populations diluting the ability to draw indication-specific conclusions on the utility of the device. More comparative data is needed to justify continuing or expanding use of WCD therapy.
PubMed: 37025482
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2023.101189 -
Heart Rhythm O2 Dec 2021Patients with end-stage heart failure are at high risk for sudden cardiac death. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not routinely implanted given...
BACKGROUND
Patients with end-stage heart failure are at high risk for sudden cardiac death. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not routinely implanted given the high competing risk of pump failure. A unique population worth separate consideration are patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting heart transplantation, as prolonged survival improves the chances of receiving transplant.
OBJECTIVE
To compare clinical outcomes of heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplant.
METHODS
We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared end-stage heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplantation. We separately assessed the rates of total mortality, sudden cardiac death, nonsudden cardiac death, and heart transplantation. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used owing to heterogeneity across study cohorts.
RESULTS
Ten studies with a total of 36,112 patients were included. A total of 62.5% of patients had an ICD implanted. Patients with an ICD had decreased total mortality (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.71, < .00001) and sudden cardiac death (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.66, = .004) and increased rates of heart transplantation (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, < .0001). There was no difference in prevalence of nonsudden cardiac death (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.04, = .07).
CONCLUSION
ICD implantation is associated with improved outcomes in patients awaiting heart transplant, characterized by decreased total mortality and sudden cardiac death as well as higher rates of heart transplantation.
PubMed: 34988520
DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2021.09.013 -
Journal of the American Heart... Nov 2015It remains to be determined whether patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It remains to be determined whether patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
METHODS AND RESULTS
We performed a literature search looking for studies of patients implanted with CRTs. Comparisons were performed between patients receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR, when available) were used as measurements of treatment effect. Nineteen entries were entitled for inclusion, comprising 12 378 patients (7030 receiving CRT-D and 5348 receiving CRT-P) and 29 799 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving CRT-D were younger, were more often males, had lower NYHA class, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, and were more often on beta-blockers. Ten studies showed significantly lower mortality rates with the CRT-D device, while the remaining 9 were neutral. The pooled data of studies revealed that CRT-D patients had significantly lower mortality rates compared with CRT-P patients (mortality rates: CRT-D 16.6% versus CRT-P 27.1%; RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76; P<0.00001). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 10. The observed I(2) values showed moderate heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=48%). The benefit of CRT-D was more pronounced in ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83, P<0.001, I(2)=0%), but a trend for benefit, albeit of lower magnitude, could also be seen in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02, P=0.07, I(2)=36%).
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of the ICD associates with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in CRT patients. This seems to be more pronounced in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Chi-Square Distribution; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electric Countershock; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Patient Selection; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26546574
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002539 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Jan 2015Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce the risk of death and hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure with left ventricular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce the risk of death and hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure with left ventricular dysfunction. However, controversy remains regarding who would most benefit from CRT. We performed a meta-analysis, and meta-regression in an attempt to identify factors that determine the outcome after CRT. A total of 23 trials comprising 10,103 patients were selected for this meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that CRT significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure compared to control treatment. The odds ratio (OR) of all-cause death had a linear relationship with mean QRS duration (P=0.009). The benefit in survival was confined to patients with a QRS duration ≥145 ms (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99), while no benefit was shown among patients with a QRS duration of 130 ms (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25) or less. Hospitalization for heart failure was shown to be significantly reduced in patients with a QRS duration ≥127 ms (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98). This meta-regression analysis implies that patients with a QRS duration ≥150 ms would most benefit from CRT, and in those with a QRS duration <130 ms CRT implantation may be potentially harmful.
Topics: Bundle-Branch Block; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electrocardiography; Heart Failure; Humans; Myocardial Contraction; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 25552880
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.1.24