Key result
ICD/CRT-D implantation for primary prevention in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease resulted in a similar mortality rate compared to implantation for secondary prevention.
Why the study?
There had been no large multicenter clinical trial evaluating the prognosis of ICD or CRT-D in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease.
Does ICD/CRT-D implantation for primary prevention improve all-cause mortality compared to secondary prevention in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=392)
Yes
Does ICD/CRT-D implantation for primary prevention improve all-cause mortality compared to secondary prevention in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease?
In Japanese patients with coronary artery disease, ICD/CRT-D implantation for primary prevention yielded similar mortality and appropriate therapy rates compared to secondary prevention, despite worse baseline cardiac function.
Background:There has been no large multicenter clinical trial on the prognosis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of the present study was to compare differences in the prognoses of Japanese patients with CAD between primary and secondary prevention, and to identify potential predictors of prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kabutoya et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=392). ICD/CRT-D for secondary prevention vs. ICD/CRT-D for primary prevention was evaluated on All-cause death (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73-1.61, p=0.682). ICD/CRT-D implantation for primary prevention in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease resulted in a similar mortality rate compared to implantation for secondary prevention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: