Why the study?
To determine the proportion of patients with MI who fulfil MADIT II criteria and the implications of MADIT II criteria in clinical practice.
Approximately 13% of patients admitted with myocardial infarction meet MADIT II criteria for primary-prevention ICD therapy, indicating a substantial potential increase in device implantation and follow-up resource requirements.
Few post-MI patients meet MADIT II criteria in practice; leaves open whether criteria warrant updated validation before guiding ICD use.
AIMS: The primary aim of this retrospective study was to determine the proportion of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who fulfil the criteria of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II and the implications of MADIT II criteria in practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of three hundred and ninety four admissions to the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. We selected those with myocardial infarction (MI) and attempted to retrieve electronic copies of their echocardiogram reports. When available, these were used to assess requirement for primary-prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) therapy based on reported left ventricular function. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients were admitted to the CCU with a diagnosis of MI. Of these, 100 patients (51.5%) had an echocardiogram. Requirement for ICD therapy was unlikely in 87 (87%), probable in 6 (6%) and necessary in 7 (7%). Since a significant number of patients in the probable category were also likely to meet MADIT II criteria, we concluded that the proportion of patients requiring primary-prevention ICD therapy would be no less than 7% and more likely to be 13%. CONCLUSION: In the context of a busy teaching hospital, a figure of 13% for the requirement of ICD therapy in MI patients represents annual implantation activity of at least 100 per million. This is likely to have very significant resource implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrim et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: