Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure

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.

Abstract

Background The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods In a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death. Results After a median follow-up period of 67.6 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 120 patients (21.6%) in the ICD group and in 131 patients (23.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28). Sudden cardiac death occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) in the ICD group and in 46 patients (8.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.82; P=0.005). Device infection occurred in 27 patients (4.9%) in the ICD group and in 20 patients (3.6%) in the control group (P=0.29). Conclusions In this trial, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care. (Funded by Medtronic and others; DANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542945 .).

Related collections

Most cited references 6

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.

S.Adam Strickberger, John D Hummel, Thomas G. Bartlett … (2003)

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.

0 comments Cited 90 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Causes-of-death analysis of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: an analysis of the CeRtiTuDe cohort study

Eloi Marijon, Christophe Leclercq, Kumar Narayanan … (2015)

Aims The choice of resynchronization therapy between with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) a defibrillator remains a contentious issue. Cause-of-death analysis among CRT-P, compared with CRT-D, patients could help evaluate the extent to which CRT-P patients would have additionally benefited from a defibrillator in a daily clinical practice. Methods and results A total of 1705 consecutive patients implanted with a CRT (CRT-P: 535 and CRT-D: 1170) between 2008 and 2010 were enrolled in CeRtiTuDe, a multicentric prospective follow-up cohort study, with specific adjudication for causes of death at 2 years. Patients with CRT-P compared with CRT-D were older (P < 0.0001), less often male (P < 0.0001), more symptomatic (P = 0.0005), with less coronary artery disease (P = 0.003), wider QRS (P = 0.002), more atrial fibrillation (P < 0.0001), and more co-morbidities (P = 0.04). At 2-year follow-up, the annual overall mortality rate was 83.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.41–94.19] per 1000 person-years. The crude mortality rate among CRT-P patients was double compared with CRT-D (relative risk 2.01, 95% CI 1.56–2.58). In a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, CRT-P remained associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.07–2.21, P = 0.0209), although other potential confounders may persist. By cause-of-death analysis, 95% of the excess mortality among CRT-P subjects was related to an increase in non-sudden death. Conclusion When compared with CRT-D patients, excess mortality in CRT-P recipients was mainly due to non-sudden death. Our findings suggest that CRT-P patients, as currently selected in routine clinical practice, would not potentially benefit with the addition of a defibrillator.