Key result
Primary prevention ICDs are linked to ~34% lower mortality in HFrEF despite severe underutilization.
Why the study?
Use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in HFrEF is limited, prompting investigation into barriers to ICD use while considering predicted mortality and sudden cardiac death risk.
What are the predictors of primary prevention ICD use in patients with HFrEF, and does ICD use reduce mortality based on predicted risk?
Cohort (n=13,475)
Yes
What are the predictors of primary prevention ICD use in patients with HFrEF, and does ICD use reduce mortality based on predicted risk?
Primary prevention ICDs are severely underutilized in eligible HFrEF patients, particularly those followed in primary care or with lower socioeconomic status, despite offering significant mortality benefits in appropriately selected patients.
AIMS: Use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is limited. We aimed to investigate barriers to ICD use in HFrEF while considering the predicted risk of mortality and SCD. METHOD AND RESULTS: Patients from the SwedeHF registered in 2011-2018 and with an indication for primary prevention ICD were analysed. The Seattle Proportional Risk and Seattle Heart Failure Models were used to predict the proportional SCD and all-cause mortality risk, respectively. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent predictors of ICD use/non-use; Cox regression models to evaluate the interaction between predicted SCD/mortality risk and ICD use for mortality. Of 13 475 patients, only 15.5% had an ICD. Those with higher predicted proportional SCD risk (>45%) had an ∼80% higher likelihood to have an ICD. Other predictors of non-use were follow-up in primary versus specialty care, higher comorbidity burden and lower socioeconomic status. ICD use was associated with lower mortality only in patients with higher predicted SCD and lower mortality risk (34% and 37% relative risk reduction for 3-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively). In this subgroup of patients, underuse of ICD was 81.8%. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary registry, only 15.5% of patients with an indication for primary prevention ICD received the device. While a high predicted proportional SCD risk was appropriately linked to ICD use, the lack of specialized follow-up, higher comorbidity burden, and lower socioeconomic status were major unjustified impediments to implementation. Our findings suggest areas for improving ICD use for primary prevention of SCD in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schrage et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=13,475). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Non-use of ICD was evaluated on ICD use. Primary prevention ICDs were used in only 15.5% of eligible HFrEF patients, though use was associated with a 34% relative risk reduction in 3-year all-cause mortality among optimal candidates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: