Key result
ICD implantation for primary prevention was associated with similar long-term all-cause mortality compared to secondary prevention (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.55-1.77; P=0.97).
Why the study?
Does ICD implantation for secondary prevention compared to primary prevention affect all-cause mortality and time to first appropriate ICD therapy in ICD recipients?
Cohort (n=360)
Does ICD implantation for secondary prevention compared to primary prevention affect all-cause mortality and time to first appropriate ICD therapy in ICD recipients?
Hazard Ratio: 0.99 (95% CI 0.55–1.77)
p-value: p=0.97
Patients receiving ICDs for secondary prevention experience earlier appropriate therapies than those treated for primary prevention, but long-term mortality remains similarly low in both groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Similar mortality with primary vs secondary prevention ICDs should not yet change practice; leaves open questions on therapy timing for selection.
Stockburger et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Sudden cardiac death (n=360). ICD for primary prevention vs. ICD for secondary prevention was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.77, p=0.97). ICD implantation for primary prevention was associated with similar long-term all-cause mortality compared to secondary prevention (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.55-1.77; P=0.97).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: