Key result
In patients undergoing ICD generator replacement, the proportion receiving appropriate therapies did not differ significantly between those with persistent (26%) and non-persistent (23%) indications.
Why the study?
Does persistent ICD indication at the time of generator replacement predict the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapies in patients with an initial primary prevention implant?
Cohort (n=166)
No
Does persistent ICD indication at the time of generator replacement predict the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapies in patients with an initial primary prevention implant?
Absolute Event Rate: 26% vs 23%
p-value: p=0.656
Even in patients whose LVEF recovers and who no longer meet primary prevention criteria at the time of ICD generator replacement, the risk of recurrent arrhythmic events remains significant, supporting continued device therapy.
BACKGROUND: Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. METHODS: We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. RESULTS: At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.96; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dell’Era et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced LVEF (n=166). Persistent ICD indication at replacement vs. Non-persistent ICD indication at replacement was evaluated on Appropriate ICD therapies after generator replacement (p=0.656). In patients undergoing ICD generator replacement, the proportion receiving appropriate therapies did not differ significantly between those with persistent (26%) and non-persistent (23%) indications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: