Algunos aspectos relacionados con la implantación del desfibrilador automático implantable

Arribas, Fernando; López‐Gil, María; Salguero, Rafael; Chimeno, Javier

doi:10.1016/s1131-3587(08)73538-6

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A hematoma can be sometimes complicated by wound infection. Moreover, hematomas may increase the patient's discomfort, lengthen hospital stay and increase healthcare expenditure . Our results appear to indicate that S‐ICD implantation does not increase the probability of hematoma compared with TV‐ICD ( P = .10) and it is another uncommon complication in both cases (0.5% in S‐ICD patients vs 0.1% in TV‐ICD patients).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta‐analysis

León‐Salas

Trujillo‐Martín

Garcı́a

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) is gaining in popularity for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The objective was to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of the S‐ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to transvenous cardioverter‐defibrillator (TV‐ICD). Methods A systematic review with meta‐analyses was performed. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were consulted in March 2018 with no restrictions on publication date. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of studies and to assess their methodologic quality. Results Ten longitudinal‐observational studies with comparison group presenting moderate methodologic flaws were included (N = 7820). The combination of results indicates that health‐related quality of life is not significantly different between S‐ICD and TV‐ICD groups (Physical health: MD = 2.90; 95% CI = −3.88, 9.68/Mental health: MD = 0.13; 95% CI = −2.11, 2.37). Mortality occurred in 4.4% of S‐ICD patients and 5.9% of TV‐ICD patients died (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.24). The incidence of infections (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 0.93, 3.43) and inappropriate shocks (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.91, 1.78) is not significantly different between both groups. The S‐ICD reduces complications related to electrodes/leads (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.29) and has lower electrodes/leads movement compared with TV‐ICD (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.10, 0.67). In contrast, pneumothorax is more likely in TV‐ICD than S‐ICD (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.97). Conclusions S‐ICD reduces electrodes/leads movement, electrodes/leads related complications, and pneumothorax. Our study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mortality, health‐related quality of life, and infection rate between S‐ICD and TV‐ICD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta‐analysis

León‐Salas

Trujillo‐Martín

Garcı́a

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Endocarditis and Cardiac Device Infections

Benedicto¹,

Domínguez²

2021

Advanced Concepts in Endocarditis - 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing number of electronic intracardiac devices (pacemakers, resynchronizers and defibrillators) and non-electronic devices (percutaneous occluders) implanted, combined with certain common characteristics in the treated population (underlying heart disease, advanced age, kidney disease, multiple associated pathologies), have led to a change in the spectrum of presentation of endocarditis, with an increase in cases related to these devices. These infections pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to the complexity of the patients, the microorganisms involved –who frequently generate the formation of biofilm- and the percutaneous or surgical techniques involved in the removal of material. All these circumstances require a multidisciplinary approach.

show abstract

Algunos aspectos relacionados con la implantación del desfibrilador automático implantable

Cited by 2 publications

References 108 publications

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta‐analysis

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta‐analysis

Endocarditis and Cardiac Device Infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About