Key result
Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in asymptomatic patients was associated with a similar 4-year incidence of rapid VT and VF compared to sudden cardiac death survivors (35% vs 35%, P=ns).
Why the study?
Does prophylactic ICD implantation result in a different incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias compared to ICD implantation for survived cardiac arrest in patients with LVEF <45%?
Cohort (n=245)
Does prophylactic ICD implantation result in a different incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias compared to ICD implantation for survived cardiac arrest in patients with LVEF <45%?
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 35%
p-value: p=ns
Patients receiving prophylactic ICDs for primary prevention experience similar long-term rates of sustained rapid ventricular arrhythmias and appropriate shocks as those receiving ICDs for secondary prevention.
Similar arrhythmia rates with prophylactic ICDs warrant caution in primary prevention; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
INTRODUCTION: Recent trials have demonstrated benefit of prophylactic defibrillator (ICD) implantation compared to conventional treatment in high-risk patients. However, many patients have rare or no sustained arrhythmias following implantation. Our study addresses the question, whether patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation have a lower risk for life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) compared to sudden cardiac death (SCD) survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over 7 years we enrolled 245 patients. Occurrence of spontaneous sustained VT/VF resulting in adequate ICD treatment was the endpoint. Incidence, type, and treatment of sustained arrhythmia in 43 previously asymptomatic ICD recipients (group B) were compared to data of 202 survivors of imminent SCD (group A). All patients had severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%). Group B patients had long runs (>6 cycles, <30 s) of VT during Holter monitoring and inducible sustained arrhythmia. Incidence of rapid VT and VF (cycle length <240 ms/heart rate >250 bpm) after 4 years (35% in both groups, P = ns) and adequate defibrillator therapies (57% vs 55%, P = ns) were similar in both groups after univariate and multivariate analysis. Cumulative mortality tended to be lower in group B compared to group A, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: During long-term follow-up, incidence of sustained rapid ventricular arrhythmia in prophylactically treated patients is as high as that of SCD survivors. Benefit from defibrillator implantation for primary prevention (group B) appears to be comparable to that for survived cardiac arrest (group A).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Backenköhler et al. (2005) conducted a cohort in Severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction requiring ICD (n=245). Prophylactic defibrillator (ICD) implantation (primary prevention) vs. Defibrillator implantation for survived cardiac arrest (secondary prevention) was evaluated on Incidence of rapid VT and VF (cycle length <240 ms/heart rate >250 bpm) after 4 years (p=ns). Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in asymptomatic patients was associated with a similar 4-year incidence of rapid VT and VF compared to sudden cardiac death survivors (35% vs 35%, P=ns).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: