Dual- vs. single-chamber defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: long-term follow-up of the Défibrillateur Automatique Implantable-Prévention Primaire registry
- PMID: 28340096
- DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw230
Dual- vs. single-chamber defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: long-term follow-up of the Défibrillateur Automatique Implantable-Prévention Primaire registry
Abstract
Aims: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an effective primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We examined whether dual-chamber (DC) ICDs confer a greater benefit than single-chamber (SC) ICDs, and compared the long-term outcomes of recipients of each type of device implanted for primary prevention.
Methods and results: Between 2002 and 2012, the DAI-PP registry consecutively enrolled 1258 SC- and 1280 DC-ICD recipients at 12 French medical centres. The devices were interrogated at 4- to 6-month intervals during outpatient visits, with a focus on the therapies delivered. The study endpoints were incidence of appropriate therapies, ICD-related morbidity, and deaths from all and from specific causes. The mean age of the SC- and DC-ICD recipients was 59 ± 12 and 62 ± 11 years, respectively (P< 0.0001). The distribution of genders, New York Heart Association functional classes and glomerular filtration rates, and the rates of ischaemic vs. dilated cardiomyopathies and of defibrillation tests at implant, were similar in both study groups. The rates of periprocedural complications were 12.1% in the DC- vs. 8.8% in the SC-ICD groups (P= 0.008). Over a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 2.2 years, pulse generators were replaced in 21.9% of the DC- vs. 13.6% of the SC-ICD group (P< 0.0001). The proportions of patients treated with ≥1 appropriate therapies (24.7 vs. 23.8%) and ≥1 inappropriate shocks (8.4 vs. 7.8%), and all-cause mortality (12.4 vs. 13.2%) were similar in both groups.
Conclusion: In this large registry of ICD implanted for primary prevention, DC-ICDs were associated with higher rates of peri-implant complications and generator replacements, whereas the survival and rates of inappropriate shocks were similar in both groups.
Clinical trial number: NCT#01992458.
Keywords: Dual-chamber defibrillator; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Inappropriate shock; Single-chamber defibrillator; Sudden death prevention.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Comment in
-
Questioning the preference for dual- vs. single-chamber implantable defibrillator in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.Europace. 2017 Sep 1;19(9):1416-1417. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw288. Europace. 2017. PMID: 28340137 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.Europace. 2017 Sep 1;19(9):1485-1492. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw199. Europace. 2017. PMID: 27702848 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Outcomes of Single- versus Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Lessons from the Israeli ICD Registry.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Jun;27(6):718-23. doi: 10.1111/jce.12953. Epub 2016 Mar 18. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016. PMID: 26852908
-
Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;30(7):1078-1085. doi: 10.1111/jce.13943. Epub 2019 Apr 22. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019. PMID: 30945798
-
The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: An update.Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Oct;25(7):606-11. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2015.01.015. Epub 2015 Feb 7. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015. PMID: 25912255 Review.
-
Inappropriate shocks in single-chamber and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Europace. 2017 Dec 1;19(12):1973-1980. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw415. Europace. 2017. PMID: 28340005 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Right ventricular pacing for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy: meta-analysis and meta-regression of clinical trials.Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019 Oct 1;5(4):321-333. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcz006. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019. PMID: 30715300 Free PMC article.
-
Temporal Trends of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantations: a Nationwide Population-based Study.Korean Circ J. 2019 Sep;49(9):841-852. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2018.0444. Epub 2019 Apr 9. Korean Circ J. 2019. PMID: 31074230 Free PMC article.
-
Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy - 2024.Arq Bras Cardiol. 2024 Jul 26;121(7):e202400415. doi: 10.36660/abc.20240415. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2024. PMID: 39082572 Free PMC article. English, Portuguese. No abstract available.
-
Subclinical atrial fibrillation detection with a floating atrial sensing dipole in single lead implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems: Results of the SENSE trial.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Oct;30(10):1994-2001. doi: 10.1111/jce.14081. Epub 2019 Aug 5. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019. PMID: 31328298 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
ACC/AHA/ASE/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2025 Appropriate Use Criteria for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, and Pacing.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025 Mar 25;85(11):1213-1285. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.11.023. Epub 2025 Jan 13. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025. PMID: 39808105
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous