Tichelbäcker, Tobias

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","3437"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","36"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","European Heart Journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","3447"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","41"],["dc.contributor.author","Zabel, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Willems, Rik"],["dc.contributor.author","Lubinski, Andrzej"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauer, Axel"],["dc.contributor.author","Brugada, Josep"],["dc.contributor.author","Conen, David"],["dc.contributor.author","Flevari, Panagiota"],["dc.contributor.author","Hasenfuß, Gerd"],["dc.contributor.author","Harden, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Friede, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Zabel, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Lüthje, Lars"],["dc.contributor.author","Haarmann, Helge"],["dc.contributor.author","Bergau, Leonard"],["dc.contributor.author","Tichelbäcker, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Hasenfuß, Gerd"],["dc.contributor.author","Friede, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Zabel, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Friede, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Harden, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Pieske, Burkert"],["dc.contributor.authorgroup","EU-CERT-ICD Study Investigators"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-05-07T07:50:46Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T13:22:10Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-05-07T07:50:46Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T13:22:10Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Aims: The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results: We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","e0186387"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","10"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PloS one"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Bergau, Leonard"],["dc.contributor.author","Tichelbäcker, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Kessel, Barbora"],["dc.contributor.author","Lüthje, Lars"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Thomas H."],["dc.contributor.author","Friede, Tim"],["dc.contributor.author","Zabel, Markus"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:44:37Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:44:37Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all- cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: All abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search strategy retrieved 608 abstracts. After exclusion of unsuitable studies, 36 papers with a total patient number of 47282 were included in our analysis. All-cause mortality was significantly associated with increasing age (HR 1.41, CI 1.29-1.53), left ventricular function (LVEF; HR 1.21, CI 1.14-1.29), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; HR 1.37, CI 1.14-1.66) and co-morbidities such as impaired renal function (HR 2.30, CI 1.97-2.69). Although, younger age (HR 0.96, CI 0.85-1.09), impaired LVEF (HR 1.26, CI 0.89-1.78) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 2.22, CI 0.83-5.93) were associated with a higher risk of appropriate shocks, none of these factors reached statistical significance. LIMITATIONS: Individual patient data were not available for most studies. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of contemporary clinical studies, all-cause mortality is predicted by a variety of clinical characteristics including LVEF. On the other hand, the risk of appropriate shocks might be associated with impaired LVEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective studies are required to verify risk factors for appropriate shocks other than LVEF to help select appropriate patients for primary prophylactic ICD-therapy."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0186387"],["dc.identifier.pmid","29040341"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14842"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59051"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation","info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/602299/EU//EU-CERT-ICD"],["dc.relation.issn","1932-6203"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.subject.mesh","Age Factors"],["dc.subject.mesh","Aged"],["dc.subject.mesh","Cardiomyopathy, Dilated"],["dc.subject.mesh","Death, Sudden, Cardiac"],["dc.subject.mesh","Defibrillators, Implantable"],["dc.subject.mesh","Female"],["dc.subject.mesh","Humans"],["dc.subject.mesh","Male"],["dc.subject.mesh","Middle Aged"],["dc.subject.mesh","Myocardial Ischemia"],["dc.subject.mesh","Primary Prevention"],["dc.subject.mesh","Prognosis"],["dc.subject.mesh","Prospective Studies"],["dc.subject.mesh","Risk Factors"],["dc.subject.mesh","Survival Analysis"],["dc.subject.mesh","Ventricular Function, Left"],["dc.title","Predictors of mortality and ICD shock therapy in primary prophylactic ICD patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","224"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","5"],["dc.contributor.author","Tichelbäcker, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Herath, Judith"],["dc.contributor.author","Tampe, Björn"],["dc.contributor.author","Korsten, Peter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:45:44Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:45:44Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Valproic acid (VPA) has been approved for the treatment of seizure disorders. It is also commonly used in psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia spectrum disorders. With increasing administration, reports of intoxications are more frequently reported. The most common findings of VPA intoxication are central nervous system depression, respiratory depression, hypotension, metabolic acidosis, and elevated lactate, among others. Methods: We describe a case report of VPA intoxication with hemodiafiltration (HDF) as extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) for removal of VPA. This treatment modality has only rarely been reported in the current literature. In addition, we performed an updated systematic literature review (SLR) of additional cases on the topic ranging fromDecember 1st, 2014 to April 20th, 2018. We searched MEDLINE and Web of Science for relevant references. Results: In the presented case, VPA intoxication occurred in a 46-year-old female patient after oral ingestion of 56 g of VPA. In addition to vasopressors and endotracheal intubation, we administered L-Carnitine (L-Car) and performed hemodiafiltration treatment. After intravenous therapy with L-Car and simultaneous HDF sessions, we observed full recovery without neurological sequelae. The SLR identified 8 additional articles reporting favorable outcomes with extracorporeal treatments in most cases. Conclusion: HDF and other extracorporeal procedures are safe and effective therapeutic options in patients with VPA intoxication. The choice of ECTR modalitymainly depends on local experience and the setting. In the present case, ingestion of 56 g was successfully treated with HDF. These findings are in line with several other case reports describing positive outcomes. Extracorporeal treatment, including HDF, should be considered early in the management of VPA intoxication. Supporting evidence is emerging, but it is of limited quality."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fmed.2018.00224"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15284"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59300"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","In goescholar not merged with http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15300 but duplicate"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","2296-858X"],["dc.rights","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Hemodiafiltration Treatment for Severe Valproic Acid Intoxication: Case Report and Updated Systematic Literature Review"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]