+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Impact of Implantable Defibrillators and Resynchronization Therapy on Outcome in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction – A Meta-Analysis


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: The clinical benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are debated. Objective: To evaluate by a meta-analysis the effect of CRT and prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with LVSD. Methods: Eligible trials evaluating the effect of CRT vs. no-CRT, ICD vs. no-ICD and adding ICD to CRT vs. no-ICD were selected and meta-analyzed. The outcomes were: all cause mortality, cardiac mortality, hospitalization for heart failure and change in exercise tolerance and New York Heart Association class. Results: Implantation of CRT reduced all cause mortality odds ratio (OR) = 0.73 (0.60–0.89) p = 0.002 and hospitalization for heart failure OR = 0.60 (0.45, 0.80) p = 0.001, increased peak oxygen consumption by 1.77 (0.32–3.22) ml/kg/min p = 0.017 and improved New York Heart Association class by at least one class with OR = 1.52 (1.30, 1.77) p < 0.0001. Implantation of ICD reduced all-cause mortality OR = 0.75 (0.59–0.96) p = 0.025 and cardiac mortality OR = 0.63 (0.48, 0.82) p = 0.001. Adding ICD to CRT reduced all cause mortality OR = 0.69 (0.53–0.91) p = 0.008. Conclusion: Selective patients with LVSD benefit from CRT, ICD or both. Further investigations are necessary to clarify which patients benefit most from a single or combined device implantation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction.

          Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with various heart conditions who are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Whether benefit occurs in patients early after myocardial infarction is unknown. We conducted the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial, a randomized, open-label comparison of ICD therapy (in 332 patients) and no ICD therapy (in 342 patients) 6 to 40 days after a myocardial infarction. We enrolled patients who had reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.35 or less) and impaired cardiac autonomic function (manifested as depressed heart-rate variability or an elevated average 24-hour heart rate on Holter monitoring). The primary outcome was mortality from any cause. Death from arrhythmia was a predefined secondary outcome. During a mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 30+/-13 months, there was no difference in overall mortality between the two treatment groups: of the 120 patients who died, 62 were in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (hazard ratio for death in the ICD group, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.55; P=0.66). There were 12 deaths due to arrhythmia in the ICD group, as compared with 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.83; P=0.009). In contrast, there were 50 deaths from nonarrhythmic causes in the ICD group and 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 1.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.76; P=0.02). Prophylactic ICD therapy does not reduce overall mortality in high-risk patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction. Although ICD therapy was associated with a reduction in the rate of death due to arrhythmia, that was offset by an increase in the rate of death from nonarrhythmic causes. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: the MIRACLE ICD Trial.

            Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) with a wide QRS; however, the outcomes of patients requiring CRT and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy are unknown. To examine the efficacy and safety of combined CRT and ICD therapy in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV congestive HF despite appropriate medical management. Randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial conducted from October 1, 1999, to August 31, 2001, of 369 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, QRS duration of 130 ms, at high risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, and in NYHA class III (n = 328) or IV (n = 41) despite optimized medical treatment. Of 369 randomized patients who received devices with combined CRT and ICD capabilities, 182 were controls (ICD activated, CRT off) and 187 were in the CRT group (ICD activated, CRT on). The primary double-blind study end points were changes between baseline and 6 months in quality of life, functional class, and distance covered during a 6-minute walk. Additional outcome measures included changes in exercise capacity, plasma neurohormones, left ventricular function, and overall HF status. Survival, incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, and rates of hospitalization were also compared. At 6 months, patients assigned to CRT had a greater improvement in median (95% confidence interval) quality of life score (-17.5 [-21 to -14] vs -11.0 [-16 to -7], P =.02) and functional class (-1 [-1 to -1] vs 0 [-1 to 0], P =.007) than controls but were no different in the change in distance walked in 6 minutes (55 m [44-79] vs 53 m [43-75], P =.36). Peak oxygen consumption increased by 1.1 mL/kg per minute (0.7-1.6) in the CRT group vs 0.1 mL/kg per minute (-0.1 to 0.8) in controls (P =.04), although treadmill exercise duration increased by 56 seconds (30-79) in the CRT group and decreased by 11 seconds (-55 to 12) in controls (P<.001). No significant differences were observed in changes in left ventricular size or function, overall HF status, survival, and rates of hospitalization. No proarrhythmia was observed and arrhythmia termination capabilities were not impaired. Cardiac resynchronization improved quality of life, functional status, and exercise capacity in patients with moderate to severe HF, a wide QRS interval, and life-threatening arrhythmias. These improvements occurred in the context of underlying appropriate medical management without proarrhythmia or compromised ICD function.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia--AMIOVIRT.

              The purpose of this multicenter randomized trial was to compare total mortality during therapy with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). Whether an ICD reduces mortality more than amiodarone in patients with NIDCM and NSVT is unknown. One hundred three patients with NIDCM, left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.35, and asymptomatic NSVT were randomized to receive either amiodarone or an ICD. The primary end point was total mortality. Secondary end points included arrhythmia-free survival, quality of life, and costs. The study was stopped when the prospective stopping rule for futility was reached. The percent of patients surviving at one year (90% vs. 96%) and three years (88% vs. 87%) in the amiodarone and ICD groups, respectively, were not statistically different (p = 0.8). Quality of life was also similar with each therapy (p = NS). There was a trend with amiodarone, as compared to the ICD, towards improved arrhythmia-free survival (p = 0.1) and lower costs during the first year of therapy ($8,879 US dollars vs. $22,039 US dollars, p = 0.1). Mortality and quality of life in patients with NIDCM and NSVT treated with amiodarone or an ICD are not statistically different. There is a trend towards a more beneficial cost profile and improved arrhythmia-free survival with amiodarone therapy.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                November 2006
                15 November 2006
                : 106
                : 4
                : 249-255
                aDepartment of Cardiology, Gentofte University Hospital, bDepartment of Medicine, Rigshospitalet Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology, and cDepartment of Cardiology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                93234 Cardiology 2006;106:249–255
                © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, References: 34, Pages: 7
                Original Research


                Comment on this article

                Similar content 262

                Cited by 3

                Most referenced authors 993