These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators reduce clinical adverse events related to atrial fibrillation when compared with single-chamber defibrillators: a subanalysis of the DATAS trial.
    Author: Ricci RP, Quesada A, Almendral J, Arribas F, Wolpert C, Adragao P, Zoni-Berisso M, Navarro X, DeSanto T, Grammatico A, Santini M, DATAS study Investigators.
    Journal: Europace; 2009 May; 11(5):587-93. PubMed ID: 19401341.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: The aim of the present analysis of the DATAS study was to compare the impact of dual- vs. single-chamber defibrillators on atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence and AF-related clinical events in patients with Class I indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and no indication for dual-chamber pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-four patients were randomized, through a centralized assignment, to single-chamber ICDs, dual-chamber ICDs programmed as single-chamber ICDs, and dual ICDs with full diagnostics and AF prevention and therapy capabilities. The latter two groups in the first 8 months of the study, when the study design was that of a randomized parallel trial, were compared in the present analysis. The primary endpoint was composed by the following AF-related clinical events: permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, cardiac-embolic events, and inappropriate ICD shocks due to AF misclassification. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were available for this analysis, of whom 111 in the single-chamber-simulated group and 112 in the dual-chamber true group. Atrial fibrillation-related composite endpoint raw incidence was 9 of 111 (8.1%) in the single-chamber group vs. 1 of 112 (0.9%) in the dual-chamber group (P = 0.0098 by Fisher's exact test). Single-chamber ICDs were associated with a significantly higher risk to develop the AF-related composite endpoint by Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 8.25, 95% CI 1.03-65.96, P = 0.047) and by the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test, P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber ICDs compared with single-chamber ICDs reduced the incidence of an endpoint composed by permanent AF, AF-related hospitalizations, and ICD shocks deemed inappropriate due to AF misclassification.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]