Upgrades from Previous Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Compared to De Novo Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantations: Results from CRT Survey-II in the Turkish Population Önceki Kardiyak İmplante Edilebilir Cihazdan Upgrade İşleminin De Novo Kardiyak Resenkronizasyon Tedavisi İmplantasyonu ile Kıyaslanması: CRT Survey-II Çalışmasının Türk Popülasyonundaki Sonuçları

Creative Commons License

Koçyiğit D., Çay S., Normand C., Linde C., Dickstein K., Altin T., ...Daha Fazla

Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi, cilt.50, sa.4, ss.182-191, 2022 (ESCI) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 50 Sayı: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2022
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5543/tkda.2022.21107
  • Dergi Adı: Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), EMBASE, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.182-191
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: adverse events, complications, CRT upgrade, device therapy, Heart failure
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

© 2022 Turkish Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.Objective: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is the guideline-directed treatment option in selected heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction patients. Data regarding the contemporary clinical practice of cardiac resynchronization therapy in Turkey have been published recently. This sub-study aims to compare clinical and periprocedural characteristics between cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade and de novo implantations. Methods: Turkish arm of the Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey-II was conducted between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, at 16 centers. All consecutive patients who underwent an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy system (n = 60) or de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation (n = 335) were eligible. Results: Distribution of age, gender, and heart failure etiology were similar in the 2 groups. Atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease were more common in cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade patients. Narrow intrinsic QRS duration and left ventricular ejection fraction being <25% were more common in cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade patients. Successful first attempt rates were 100% and 98.8% in upgrade and de novo implantation groups. Rates of periprocedural complications were similar between the 2 groups (8.3% vs. 5.9%), but postprocedural adverse events during hospitalization were more common in cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade patients (18.3% vs. 9.0%), with worsening heart failure being the most common reason. Prescription rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-II receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and beta-blockers were >75% in both groups, and only beta-blockers were prescribed at rates of >90% in both groups. Conclusion: Cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades are performed with high procedural success rates and without excess periprocedural complication risk. Feared complications of cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrades due to the pre-existing device should not delay the procedure if indicated.