Implantable cardiac devices in adult patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot
(2021) In Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal 55(1). p.22-28- Abstract
Objectives: Implantable cardiac devices are common in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) (18.3–21.3%) according to previous reports from large centres. We conducted this study to investigate the prevalence and incidence of cardiac devices in a less selected population of patients with ToF and assess factors other than arrhythmia associated with having a device. Design: 530 adult (≥18 years) patients with repaired ToF were identified in the national registry of congenital heart disease (SWEDCON) and matched with data from the Swedish pacemaker registry. Patients with implantable cardiac devices were compared with patients without devices. Results: Seventy-five patients (14.2%) had a device; 51 (9.6%) had a pacemaker and 24 (4.5%)... (More)
Objectives: Implantable cardiac devices are common in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) (18.3–21.3%) according to previous reports from large centres. We conducted this study to investigate the prevalence and incidence of cardiac devices in a less selected population of patients with ToF and assess factors other than arrhythmia associated with having a device. Design: 530 adult (≥18 years) patients with repaired ToF were identified in the national registry of congenital heart disease (SWEDCON) and matched with data from the Swedish pacemaker registry. Patients with implantable cardiac devices were compared with patients without devices. Results: Seventy-five patients (14.2%) had a device; 51 (9.6%) had a pacemaker and 24 (4.5%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The incidence in adult age (≥18 years) was 5.9/1000 patient years. Estimated device free survival was 97.5% at twenty, 87.2% at forty and 63.5% at sixty years of age. Compared with previous studies, the prevalence of devices was lower, especially for ICD. In multivariate logistic regression, cardiovascular medication (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–6.8), impaired left ventricular function, (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.3–5.0) and age (OR 1.02, 95%CI 1.002–1.05) were associated with having a device. Conclusion: The prevalence of devices in our population, representing a multicenter register cohort, was lower than previously reported, especially regarding ICD. This can be due to differences in treatment traditions with regard to ICD in this population, but it may also be that previous studies have reported selected patients with more severe disease.
(Less)
- author
- Sandström, Anette ; Rinnström, Daniel ; Kesek, Milos ; Thilén, Ulf LU ; Dellborg, Mikael ; Sörensson, Peder ; Nielsen, Niels Erik ; Christersson, Christina and Johansson, Bengt
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- congenital heart disease, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, pacemaker, register, Tetralogy of Fallot
- in
- Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal
- volume
- 55
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 22 - 28
- publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85088051820
- pmid:32672076
- ISSN
- 1401-7431
- DOI
- 10.1080/14017431.2020.1792973
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 3321cbf3-09c6-4e42-9aee-a6406a08a2f7
- date added to LUP
- 2020-07-30 13:08:41
- date last changed
- 2024-04-03 12:26:14
@article{3321cbf3-09c6-4e42-9aee-a6406a08a2f7,
abstract = {{<p>Objectives: Implantable cardiac devices are common in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF) (18.3–21.3%) according to previous reports from large centres. We conducted this study to investigate the prevalence and incidence of cardiac devices in a less selected population of patients with ToF and assess factors other than arrhythmia associated with having a device. Design: 530 adult (≥18 years) patients with repaired ToF were identified in the national registry of congenital heart disease (SWEDCON) and matched with data from the Swedish pacemaker registry. Patients with implantable cardiac devices were compared with patients without devices. Results: Seventy-five patients (14.2%) had a device; 51 (9.6%) had a pacemaker and 24 (4.5%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The incidence in adult age (≥18 years) was 5.9/1000 patient years. Estimated device free survival was 97.5% at twenty, 87.2% at forty and 63.5% at sixty years of age. Compared with previous studies, the prevalence of devices was lower, especially for ICD. In multivariate logistic regression, cardiovascular medication (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–6.8), impaired left ventricular function, (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.3–5.0) and age (OR 1.02, 95%CI 1.002–1.05) were associated with having a device. Conclusion: The prevalence of devices in our population, representing a multicenter register cohort, was lower than previously reported, especially regarding ICD. This can be due to differences in treatment traditions with regard to ICD in this population, but it may also be that previous studies have reported selected patients with more severe disease.</p>}},
author = {{Sandström, Anette and Rinnström, Daniel and Kesek, Milos and Thilén, Ulf and Dellborg, Mikael and Sörensson, Peder and Nielsen, Niels Erik and Christersson, Christina and Johansson, Bengt}},
issn = {{1401-7431}},
keywords = {{congenital heart disease; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; pacemaker; register; Tetralogy of Fallot}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{22--28}},
publisher = {{Taylor & Francis}},
series = {{Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal}},
title = {{Implantable cardiac devices in adult patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14017431.2020.1792973}},
doi = {{10.1080/14017431.2020.1792973}},
volume = {{55}},
year = {{2021}},
}