Why the study?
What is the current utilization and prognostic impact of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure?
What is the current utilization and prognostic impact of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure?
Prophylactic ICDs are underutilized in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure, and the combination of chronic atrial fibrillation and LVDd ≥ 65 mm strongly predicts fatal arrhythmic events.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine arrhythmic risk stratification for primary-prevention ICD candidates; supports targeted evaluation but leaves practice change open pending RCTs.
BACKGROUND: The current status of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains to be fully elucidated in Japan. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the chronic heart failure (CHF) cohort study, the CHART-2 Study, we enrolled 2,778 consecutive patients with NYHA class II-III. According to the Japanese Circulation Society guideline of prophylactic ICD, we divided them into 3 groups: group A, class I indication; B, class IIa; and C, no indication. During the (median) 3.2-year follow-up, 79 fatal arrhythmic events (FAE), defined as composite of sudden cardiac/arrhythmic death, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation and appropriate ICD therapy, occurred. In the groups A, B and C, the prevalence of FAE was 16.1%, 8.9% and 1.9%, respectively; the use of prophylactic ICD among those with FAE, however, was only 44%, 9% and 6%, respectively. In the groups A and B combined, chronic atrial fibrillation (cAF) and left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVDd) ≥ 65 mm were independent predictors of FAE, and, when combined, their prognostic impact was highly significant (hazard ratio, 7.01; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention of SCD with ICD in CHF patients is validated but is still underused in Japan, and the combination of cAF and LVDd ≥ 65 mm may be a useful indication of prophylactic ICD implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Satake et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: