Key result
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation did not significantly reduce mortality compared to no ICD (3.4% vs 2.5%, p=0.7591) in patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm.
Why the study?
Coronary artery spasm can cause aborted sudden cardiac death, but real-world data on coronary vasodilator therapy, ICD implantation, and patient prognosis were needed.
Does ICD implantation improve survival in patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm?
Observational (n=98)
Yes
Does ICD implantation improve survival in patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm?
In patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm, mortality was low and not significantly different between those with and without an ICD, highlighting the challenge of selecting appropriate candidates for ICD implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No mortality difference seen with ICD; leaves open optimal vasodilator and device strategies in spasm-related aborted SCD.
Background: Coronary artery spasm may lead to the aborted sudden cardiac death (A-SCD). Objectives: We investigated the number of coronary vasodilators, including calcium channel blocker (CCB), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and prognosis in patients with A-SCD due to coronary spasm in the real world. Methods: We recruited 98 patients (82 men, mean age of 59.6±13.3 years old) with A-SCD due to coronary spasm using a questionnaire. Results: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) as a cause of A-SCD was observed in 83 patients (84.7%), while pulseless electrical activity (PEA) was recognized in 12 patients (12.2%). ICD was implanted in 58 patients and appropriate ICD therapies were recognized in 8 patients (13.8%). There were no differences regarding medications between patients with and without ICD or between patients who survived and those who died. Mean follow-up duration was 27.1±19.9 months and three patients died. Mortality during the follow-up period was not different patients with ICD from those without ICD. The mean number of coronary vasodilators including CCB in patients with spasm provocation tests under medications were significantly higher than in those without. VF as an initial cause of A-SCD was recognized in all 3 patients who died, while PEA was a final cause of death in 2 of 3 patients. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes in patients with A-SCD due to coronary spasm is satisfactory under medical and mechanical therapy. Decision of requiring the ICD implantation in patients with A-SCD due to coronary spasm is a challenging clinical problem.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sueda et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm (n=98). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD was evaluated on Mortality (p=0.7591). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation did not significantly reduce mortality compared to no ICD (3.4% vs 2.5%, p=0.7591) in patients with aborted sudden cardiac death due to coronary spasm.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: