Key result
Primary prevention ICD patients were less likely to receive appropriate therapies than secondary prevention patients (18% vs 26%, P=0.02), but experienced similar mortality and quality of life.
Why the study?
Do appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, quality of life, and mortality differ between primary and secondary prevention ICD patients?
Population
582 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators from the PainFREE Rx II study
Comparison
Primary prevention ICD indication vs Secondary prevention ICD indication
Design
Cohort, Parent trial randomized to antitachycardia pacing or shock as initial…
Follow-up
11+/-3 months
Authors
Loading...
Similar mortality and quality of life across ICD indications despite fewer therapies in primary prevention; leaves open prospective validation of risk stratification.
RCT (n=582)
antitachycardia pacing or shock
Do appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, quality of life, and mortality differ between primary and secondary prevention ICD patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 18% vs 26%
p-value: p=0.02
Primary prevention ICD patients experience slightly fewer appropriate therapies than secondary prevention patients, but have similar rates of inappropriate therapies, quality of life improvements, and mortality.
Sweeney et al. (2005) conducted an RCT in Primary and secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients (n=582). Primary prevention ICD vs. Secondary prevention ICD was evaluated on Appropriate therapies (p=0.02). Primary prevention ICD patients were less likely to receive appropriate therapies than secondary prevention patients (18% vs 26%, P=0.02), but experienced similar mortality and quality of life.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: