Why the study?
The MADIT-ICD benefit score was proposed to evaluate individual risk and predict ICD benefit in primary prevention, but its usefulness required examination in an S-ICD patient cohort.
Does the MADIT-ICD benefit score predict ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death in patients receiving a subcutaneous ICD for primary prevention?
Cohort (n=173)
No
Does the MADIT-ICD benefit score predict ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death in patients receiving a subcutaneous ICD for primary prevention?
The MADIT-ICD benefit score did not accurately predict ventricular arrhythmias in a young, heterogeneous S-ICD cohort, suggesting its validity may be limited primarily to older patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Does not predict therapies in this S-ICD cohort; leaves open validity beyond older ischemic patients.
Background : The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is used in an increasing number of patients for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current ICD guidelines. To help evaluating the patient’s individual risk, a new score trying to predict the benefit of an ICD implantation for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, which tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death, has been proposed. We therefore aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single centre register of S-ICD patients Methods and results : All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single centre database were included in the analysis (n=173). During a follow-up of 1227±978 days 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. Occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score ( p =0.3) in patients with (n=142, p =0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n=31, p =0.88). However, there was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n=29, p =0.04). Only one parameter (non-sustained ventricular tachycardia) was significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias ( p =0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score ( p =0.001, r =0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI <23 kg/m 2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score. Conclusion : The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. However, in our S-ICD cohort, the only group in which the score worked properly for prediction of sudden and non-sudden death were ICM patients, so that a larger validation in more heterogeneous cohorts in mandatory to claim general validity for this score in risk stratification for primary preventive ICD implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Willy et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Primary preventive indication for S-ICD implantation (n=173). MADIT-ICD benefit score was evaluated on Correlation between the MADIT-ICD benefit score and the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapies (p=0.62).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: