Clinical practice of defibrillator implantation after myocardial infarction: impact of implant time: results from the PreSCD II Registry
Why the study?
Does ICD implantation improve survival in post-MI patients compared to no ICD therapy?
Population
10,612 consecutive patients enrolled 4 weeks or later after myocardial infarction, mean age 61 ± 12 years…
Comparison
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator… vs No ICD therapy
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
36 months
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May support delayed ICD implantation for lower post-MI mortality; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Structured PICO
Does ICD implantation improve survival in post-MI patients compared to no ICD therapy?
P
Population
10,612 consecutive patients enrolled 4 weeks or later after myocardial infarction, mean age 61 ± 12 years, 76% male, in Germany. The followed cohort included all patients with LVEF ≤40% (n=952) and a randomly selected group with preserved LVEF (n=1106).
I
Intervention
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation
C
Comparator
No ICD therapy
O
Outcome
All-cause mortality / survival at 36 monthshard clinical
In a real-world post-MI registry, guideline-indicated ICD therapy was underutilized, and survival benefits were primarily observed when devices were implanted more than 11 months after the acute event.
Cite This Study
Völler et al. (2010) studied this question.