Show simple item record

A Restrictive Inflow Pattern Does Not Predict Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Primary Prevention

dc.contributor.authorDorosz, Jennifer L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAaronson, Keith D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGood, Eric D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKolias, Theodore J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-01-05T15:10:06Z
dc.date.available2010-03-01T21:10:28Zen_US
dc.date.issued2009-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationDorosz, Jennifer L.; Aaronson, Keith D.; Good, Eric D.; Kolias, Theodore J. (2009). "A Restrictive Inflow Pattern Does Not Predict Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Primary Prevention." Clinical Cardiology 32(12): E32-E35. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/64537>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0160-9289en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-8737en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/64537
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=20014210&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground Current guidelines for the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are broad and significantly increase the cost of caring for patients with heart failure. In an effort to identify the specific subset of patients who benefit from this therapy, the predictive value of numerous echocardiographic parameters have been studied. Severe diastolic dysfunction has been shown to predict adverse events in a group of patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention, but has not been tested in those who receive ICDs for primary prevention. Hypothesis We tested the hypothesis that a restrictive mitral inflow pattern on echocardiography will predict the risk of appropriate therapy in this patient population. Methods This retrospective study identified 145 consecutive patients who met primary prevention criteria for ICD implantation and had an echo performed no more than 1 year prior to receiving the ICD. A restrictive pattern was defined as a mitral inflow E/A > 2 or a deceleration time < 150 ms. Results A restrictive pattern was present in 69 patients (40.7% of the group). Appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 8 (11.5%) subjects with a restrictive pattern and 14 (18.4%) with a nonrestrictive pattern over 680 days of average follow-up ( P = not significant). Cox regression analysis showed the presence of a restrictive pattern was not helpful in predicting time to first ICD therapy. Conclusions In a population of patients who received ICDs for primary prevention, echocardiographic findings of severe diastolic dysfunction were not helpful in targeting the use of ICDs to those at highest risk. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.format.extent93277 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherMedicine and Healthcareen_US
dc.subject.otherCardiovascular Diseaseen_US
dc.titleA Restrictive Inflow Pattern Does Not Predict Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Primary Preventionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialitiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; University of Colorado Cardiac & Vascular Center 12606 E. 16th Ave, Mail Stop B120 PO Box 6510 Aurora, CO 80045en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.identifier.pmid20014210en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64537/1/20474_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/clc.20474en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Cardiologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.