Key result
Patients implanted with a prophylactic ICD at least 7 years after their last myocardial infarction had a significantly higher incidence of appropriate device therapy compared to those implanted within 1.5 years (26.1% vs 17.1%, p=0.013).
Why the study?
Does the time elapsed between last myocardial infarction and prophylactic ICD implant influence the incidence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate device therapies in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
Observational (n=643)
Yes
Does the time elapsed between last myocardial infarction and prophylactic ICD implant influence the incidence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate device therapies in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
Patients receiving a prophylactic ICD longer after their last myocardial infarction have a higher incidence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies, though overall mortality remains similar.
Should not alter prophylactic ICD timing post-MI; hypothesis-generating for arrhythmic risk by infarct chronicity.
BACKGROUND: A multicenter European Registry, SEARCH-MI, was instituted in the year 2002 in order to assess patients' outcomes and ICD interventions in patients with a previous MI and depressed LV function, treated with an ICD according to MADIT II results. In this analysis, we evaluate the influence of the time elapsed between last myocardial infarction (MI) and prophylactic cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant on device activations. METHODS: 643 patients with left ventricular dysfunction (mean LVEF 26 ± 5%) and NYHA class I-III were prospectively followed for 1.8 ± 1.2 years in a multicenter registry. The population was divided into 3 groups according to the time between last MI and ICD implant: [1] from 40 days to less than 1.5 years; [2] from 1.5 to less than 7 years and [3] at least 7 years. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of ventricular tachyarrhymias and appropriate device therapy (ATP or shock) were higher in patients implanted longer time from last MI (Gray's Test p=0.002 and p=0.013 respectively). No significant differences were seen in all cause mortality (Gray's Test p=0.618) or sudden cardiac death across the MI stratification groups (Gray's Test p=0.663). CONCLUSIONS: Patients implanted with an ICD longer after the MI have a higher chance of presenting ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapy, while no differences were seen in overall mortality. These observations may be important for improving patient targeting in sudden death prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boriani et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Previous myocardial infarction and depressed left ventricular function (n=643). Prophylactic ICD implant ≥7 years after last MI vs. Prophylactic ICD implant >40 days and <1.5 years after last MI was evaluated on Delivery of at least 1 appropriate device therapy (ATP or shock) (p=0.013). Patients implanted with a prophylactic ICD at least 7 years after their last myocardial infarction had a significantly higher incidence of appropriate device therapy compared to those implanted within 1.5 years (26.1% vs 17.1%, p=0.013).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: