Why the study?
Do implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
Do implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death?
This critical review suggests that current guidelines may lead to ICD overuse, as survival benefits are not established in all subgroups (e.g., women, elderly) and LVEF alone is insufficient for risk prediction.
Supports reappraisal of ICD use in women and elderly; leaves open refined risk stratification beyond LVEF.
Critical analysis of the existing evidence indicates that: In patients with documented sustained ventricular arrhythmias and/or cardiac arrest, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) confer a survival benefit. In several clinical settings this is rather transient, and might be lost when modern medical therapy including β-blockers is implemented. In patients without sustained ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest, ICDs confer a significant survival benefit only in high-risk patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 35% due to a remote myocardial infarction. Left ventricular ejection fraction alone is rather unlikely to be sufficient for effective sudden cardiac death risk prediction, due to low sensitivity and specificity. The benefits of ICDs in the elderly as well as in women are not established. With current prices, ICDs are probably cost-effective only when used in high-risk patients without associated comorbidities that limit the life expectancy to <10 years. Recommendations by current guidelines may result in unnecessary overuse of ICD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Katritsis et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: