Key result
Guideline-indicated implantation of CRT-D or ICD in primary prevention patients significantly reduced mortality compared with no implant (CRT-D HR 0.42, P<0.0001; ICD HR 0.57, P=0.002).
Why the study?
ICD and CRT-D utilization remains low in many geographies despite proven mortality benefit, warranting examination of mortality benefits in primary prevention patients by guideline-indicated device type.
Cohort (n=2,618)
None
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports indicated CRT-D/ICD use in primary prevention; hypothesis-generating in observational data and needs randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: In primary prevention (PP) patients the utilization of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D) remains low in many geographies, despite the proven mortality benefit. PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the mortality benefit in PP patients by guideline-indicated device type: ICD and CRT-D. METHODS: Improve sudden cardiac arrest was a prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded multicenter trial that enrolled patients from regions where ICD utilization is low. PP patient's CRT-D or ICD eligibility was based upon the 2008 ACC/AHA/HRS and 2006 ESC guidelines. Mortality was assessed according to guideline-indicated device type comparing implanted and nonimplanted patients. Cox proportional hazards methods were used, adjusting for known factors affecting mortality risk. RESULTS: Among 2618 PP patients followed for a mean of 20.8 ± 10.8 months, 1073 were indicated for a CRT-D, and 1545 were indicated for an ICD. PP CRT-D-indicated patients who received CRT-D therapy had a 58% risk reduction in mortality compared with those without implant (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.61, p < .0001). PP patients with an ICD indication had a 43% risk reduction in mortality with an ICD implant compared with no implant (adjusted HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.81, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the mortality benefit of adherence to guideline-indicated implantable defibrillation therapy for PP patients in geographies where ICD therapy was underutilized. These results affirm that medical practice should follow clinical guidelines when choosing therapy for PP patients who meet the respective defibrillator device implant indication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ching et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest (n=2,618). CRT-D or ICD implantation vs. No implant was evaluated on Mortality (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.61, p=<0.0001). Guideline-indicated implantation of CRT-D or ICD in primary prevention patients significantly reduced mortality compared with no implant (CRT-D HR 0.42, P<0.0001; ICD HR 0.57, P=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: