Key result
In octogenarians, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation was associated with a decreased risk of death compared to ICD alone (HR 0.212; 95% CI 0.048-0.942; P=0.042).
Why the study?
Is primary prevention ICD or CRT-D implantation safe and effective in patients aged 80 years or older?
Cohort (n=84)
Is primary prevention ICD or CRT-D implantation safe and effective in patients aged 80 years or older?
Hazard Ratio: 0.212 (95% CI 0.048–0.942)
p-value: p=0.042
Primary prevention ICD and CRT-D implantation in selected octogenarians is safe and associated with reasonable long-term survival, with CRT-D offering a significant survival advantage over ICD alone.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support risk stratification for early mortality in octogenarian ICD recipients; leaves open net clinical benefit of primary prevention.
STRIMEL et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Primary sudden cardiac death prevention (n=84). Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) vs. ICD alone was evaluated on death (HR 0.212, 95% CI 0.048-0.942, p=0.042). In octogenarians, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation was associated with a decreased risk of death compared to ICD alone (HR 0.212; 95% CI 0.048-0.942; P=0.042).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: