Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Electrical storms (E-storms), defined as multiple fatal ventricular arrhythmias over a short period, negatively affect the prognosis of patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (ICD/CRT-D). However, the prognostic impact of recurrent E-storms has not been well elucidated.
Methods And Results: We analyzed the association between E-storm recurrences and mortality using data from 1,274 participants in the Nippon Storm Study, a prospective observational study conducted at 48 ICD/CRT-D centers in Japan. Differences in E-storm recurrences by patient characteristics were evaluated using the mean cumulative function (MCF), which is the cumulative number of E-storm episodes per patient as a function of time. Patients with multiple E-storms had a 3.39-fold higher mortality risk than those without E-storms (95% confidence interval 1.82-6.28; P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in mortality risk between patients with a single E-storm and those without E-storms. The MCF curve exhibited a slower ascent in patients who received primary prevention ICD/CRT-D than in those who received secondary prevention ICD/CRT-D. However, when analyzing only patients with E-storms, the MCF curves demonstrated comparable trajectories in both groups.
Conclusions: E-storm recurrences may have a negative impact on prognosis. Once patients with primary prevention experience an E-storm episode, they face a similar risk of subsequent recurrent E-storms as patients with secondary prevention.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-24-0390 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!