Barra, S;
Providência, R;
Boveda, S;
Duehmke, R;
Narayanan, K;
Chow, AW;
Piot, O;
... Marijon, E; + view all
(2018)
Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention.
Heart
, 104
(18)
pp. 1529-1535.
10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312546.
Preview |
Text
Barra_CRTp vs CRTd ARTICLE complications Marked copy.pdf - Accepted Version Download (403kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objective: In patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), the choice between a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) versus defibrillator (CRT-D) remains controversial and indications in this setting have not been well delineated. Apart from inappropriate therapies, which are inherent to the presence of a defibrillator, whether adding defibrillator to CRT in the primary prevention setting impacts risk of other acute and late device-related complications has not been well studied and may bear relevance for device selection. // Methods: Observational multicentre European cohort study of 3008 consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, undergoing CRT implantation with (CRT-D, n=1785) or without (CRT-P, n=1223) defibrillator. Using propensity score and competing risk analyses, we assessed the risk of significant device-related complications requiring surgical reintervention. Inappropriate shocks were not considered except those due to lead malfunction requiring lead revision. // Results: Acute complications occurred in 148 patients (4.9%), without significant difference between groups, even after considering potential confounders (OR=1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.00, p=0.47). During a mean follow-up of 41.4±29 months, late complications occurred in 475 patients, giving an annual incidence rate of 26 (95% CI 9 to 43) and 15 (95% CI 6 to 24) per 1000 patient-years in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, respectively. CRT-D was independently associated with increased occurrence of late complications (HR=1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23, p=0.001). In particular, when compared with CRT-P, CRT-D was associated with an increased risk of device-related infection (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p=0.004). Acute complications did not predict overall late complications, but predicted device-related infection (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.56, p<0.001). // Conclusions: Compared with CRT-P, CRT-D is associated with a similar risk of periprocedural complications but increased risk of long-term complications, mainly infection. This needs to be considered in the decision of implanting CRT with or without a defibrillator.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312546 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312546 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| Keywords: | Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; pacemaker; device-related complications; infection; follow-up; propensity score matching; competing risk |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Institute of Health Informatics |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10052006 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
