Key result
Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had a significantly higher recurrence rate of VT/VF compared to those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (57.9% vs 36.2%, p=0.032) over a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.
Why the study?
Do patients with dilated cardiomyopathy have a higher rate of ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy after receiving an ICD for secondary prevention?
Cohort (n=132)
Do patients with dilated cardiomyopathy have a higher rate of ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy after receiving an ICD for secondary prevention?
Absolute Event Rate: 57.9% vs 36.2%
p-value: p=0.032
Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy receiving an ICD for secondary prevention have a significantly higher rate of VT/VF recurrence compared to those with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
DCM associated with higher post-ICD VT/VF recurrence; hypothesis-generating for etiology-specific risk stratification.
Background The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been established as an effective secondary prevention strategy for ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, few reports discuss the difference in clinical predictors for recurrent VT/VF between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Methods From May 2004 to December 2015, 132 consecutive patients who had ICM ( n = 94) or DCM ( n = 38) and had received ICD implantation for secondary prevention were enrolled in this study. All anti-tachycardia events during follow-up were validated. The clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were obtained for comparison. The incidence of recurrence of VT/VF, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, the change of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV volume were analyzed. Results At a mean follow-up of 3.62 ± 2.93 years, 34 patients (36.2%) in the ICM group and 22 patients (57.9%) in the DCM group had a recurrence of VT/VF episodes ( p = 0.032). The DCM group had a lower LVEF ( p = 0.019), a larger LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) ( p = 0.001), a higher prevalence of LVEDV >158 mL ( p = 0.010), and a larger LV end-systolic volume ( p = 0.010) than the ICM group. LVEDV >158 mL and no use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker were independent predictors of recurrences of VT/VF in ICM patients but not in DCM patients. There were no difference in cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality between the ICM and DCM patients. Conclusion The DCM patients had a higher recurrence rate of VT/VF than did the ICM patients during long-term follow-up. An enlarged LV is an independent predictor of the recurrence of VT/VF in ICM patients receiving ICD for secondary prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fang et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Ischemic cardiomyopathy and dilated cardiomyopathy with ICD (n=132). Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) vs. Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was evaluated on Recurrence of VT/VF episodes (p=0.032). Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had a significantly higher recurrence rate of VT/VF compared to those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (57.9% vs 36.2%, p=0.032) over a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: