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: Clinical experience with wearable cardioverter defibrillators at a tertiary electrophysiology program.
    Author: Bossory L, Schubert S, Afzal MR, Weiss R, Tyler J, Kalbfleisch S, Augostini R, Hummel J, Okabe T, Daoud EG, Houmsse M.
    Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2018 Nov; 41(11):1491-1494. PubMed ID: 30191582.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an alternative for patients who are not immediate candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 242 patients prescribed a WCD from January 2014 through March 2015 with 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A WCD was prescribed to 242 patients during the 15-month period. Forty-one patients were excluded due to lack of complete follow-up. The remaining 201 patients received a WCD for primary or secondary prevention of SCD. Seventy-nine percent of WCDs were prescribed by nonelectrophysiologists. Underlying etiologies for the WCD prescription included: 38% nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 25% recent myocardial infarction, 16% newly diagnosed ischemic cardiomyopathy, 12% documented ventricular arrhythmia, 6% ICD lead extraction, and 3% had high risk conditions for sudden cardiac death. During 1-year follow-up, 96 patients (48%) received an ICD and five patients (2.5%) received appropriate shocks and one patient (0.5 %) received an inappropriate shock. Other 105 (52%) patients subsequently did not require an ICD due to either improvement in ejection fraction, refusal of ICD therapy, or death. CONCLUSIONS: About half of patients prescribed a WCD subsequently receive an ICD and the rate of appropriate shock therapy from the WCD is 2.5%.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]