15.01.2015 Views

Lumax Family of ICDs and CRT‑Ds - BIOTRONIK USA - News

Lumax Family of ICDs and CRT‑Ds - BIOTRONIK USA - News

Lumax Family of ICDs and CRT‑Ds - BIOTRONIK USA - News

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

42 <strong>Lumax</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Technical Manual<br />

Table 17: Hospitalization, ER Visits <strong>and</strong> Outpatient Visits<br />

Medical Visits Study (N=128) Control (N=65)<br />

Hospital Admissions<br />

Patients<br />

Hospitalizations<br />

Patients<br />

Hospitalizations<br />

Emergency Room<br />

Visits<br />

Patients<br />

Visits<br />

Patients<br />

Visits<br />

Outpatient Visits<br />

Patients<br />

Visits<br />

Patients<br />

Visits<br />

CHF Related:<br />

20 (15.6%)<br />

28<br />

All causes:<br />

68 (53.1%)<br />

76<br />

CHF Related:<br />

1 (0.8%)<br />

1<br />

All causes:<br />

13 (10.1%)<br />

16<br />

CHF Related:<br />

1 (0.8%)<br />

1<br />

All causes:<br />

5 (3.9%)<br />

5<br />

CHF Related:<br />

5 (7.7%)<br />

9<br />

All causes:<br />

29 (44.6%)<br />

46<br />

CHF Related:<br />

0 (0.0%)<br />

0<br />

All causes:<br />

2 (3.1%)<br />

2<br />

CHF Related:<br />

0 (0.0%)<br />

0<br />

All causes:<br />

2 (3.1%)<br />

2<br />

A large percentage <strong>of</strong> All Cause hospitalizations can be attributed<br />

to pacing lead revisions, device infections, or other device‐related<br />

interventions (e.g., pocket revision or device replacements for ERI<br />

or device recall). The CHF hospitalization rate for both the study <strong>and</strong><br />

control groups is clinically acceptable considering the enrollment CHF<br />

status <strong>of</strong> the patients.<br />

The purpose <strong>of</strong> Secondary Endpoint 7 is to evaluate the observation rate.<br />

Observations are defined as clinical events that do not require additional<br />

invasive intervention to resolve. For the study group, there were<br />

210 observations in 104 patients with cumulative implant duration <strong>of</strong><br />

1240.4 months (101.9 patient years). 78.2% <strong>of</strong> the enrolled study patients<br />

have a reported observation. The rate <strong>of</strong> observations per patient‐year is<br />

2.06. For the control group, there were 81 observations in 44 patients<br />

with cumulative implant duration <strong>of</strong> 596.5 months (49.0 patient years).<br />

65.7% <strong>of</strong> the enrolled control patients had a reported observation. The<br />

rate <strong>of</strong> observations per patient‐year was 1.65.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!