SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.86 issue1Experience with the use of the bio-active stent coated with titanium nitric oxide compared with zotarolimus-eluting stent: experience of a unit medical high specialtySurgical results and monitoring of postoperative atrial myxomas author indexsubject indexsearch form
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Archivos de cardiología de México

On-line version ISSN 1665-1731Print version ISSN 1405-9940

Abstract

RODRIGUEZ-MANERO, Moisés et al. Electrical storm in patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation. Arch. Cardiol. Méx. [online]. 2016, vol.86, n.1, pp.26-34. ISSN 1665-1731.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acmx.2015.04.008.

Introduction:

Little is known about the prevalence of electrical storm, baseline characteristics and mortality implications of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator in primary prevention versus those patients without electrical storm. We sought to assess the prevalence, baseline risk profile and survival significance of electrical storm in patients with implantable defibrillator for primary prevention.

Methods:

Retrospective multicenter study performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutives patients referred for desfibrillator implantation, with or without left ventricular lead (at least those performed in 2010 and 2011), were included.

Results:

Over all 1,174 patients, 34 (2,9%) presented an electrical storm, mainly due to ventricular tachycardia (82.4%). There were no significant baseline differences between groups, with similar punctuation in the mortality risk scores (SHOCKED, MADIT and FADES). A clear trigger was identified in 47% of the events. During the study period (38 ± 21 months), long-term total mortality (58.8% versus 14.4%, p < 0.001) and cardiac mortality (52.9% versus 8.6%, p < 0.001) were both increased among electrical storm patients. Rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention was also higher (14.7 versus 8.6%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

In the present study of patients with desfibrillator implantation for primary prevention, prevalence of electrical storm was 2.9%. There were no baseline differences in the cardiovascular risk profile versus those without electrical storm. However, all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was increased in these patients versus control desfibrillator patients without electrical storm, as was the rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention.

Keywords : Electrical storm; Myocardiopathy; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Sudden cardiac death; Spain.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish