Key result
Primary prevention ICDs show no difference in appropriate therapy between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Why the study?
Guidelines increasingly recommend a more conservative approach to ICD implantation, especially in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, raising questions about withholding ICDs versus potential procedural and device complications.
What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=740)
Yes
What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Long-term follow-up of primary prevention ICD recipients demonstrates a high rate of appropriate therapies even in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, challenging the trend toward withholding ICDs in this population.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romers et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indication (n=740). Ischemic cardiomyopathy vs. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy was evaluated on Appropriate ICD therapy (p=0.124). In primary prevention ICD recipients, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 23.5% of patients with ischemic and 18.6% with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (p=0.124) over a median 7.54 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: