Key result
Positive programmed electrical stimulation with ICD implantation showed a trend towards increased 5-year survival compared to negative PES (p=0.058), with significant benefit in patients <68 years.
Why the study?
Does positive programmed electrical stimulation followed by ICD implantation improve overall survival compared to negative PES without ICD in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=198)
Does positive programmed electrical stimulation followed by ICD implantation improve overall survival compared to negative PES without ICD in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
p-value: p=0.058
Non-inducibility during programmed electrical stimulation does not predict a benign prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy, supporting the practice of not relying on negative PES to withhold ICD therapy.
Negative PES may not identify low-risk patients in ischemic cardiomyopathy; leaves open PES-guided ICD decisions pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) are at an increased risk for sudden death. Although earlier trials used programmed electrical stimulation (PES) for risk stratification, more recent data demonstrate the benefit of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) in selected patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) without performing PES. However, little is known about the outcome of non-inducible patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PES for mortality risk stratification in patients with ICM. METHODS: All consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria (history of coronary artery disease, LVEF≤35%, and absence of documented spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia or aborted sudden cardiac death) were included in the study. The stimulation protocol involved up to three extrastimuli from two different sites in the right ventricle, with 180 ms as the shortest coupling interval. The primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were included in the study; of these, 60 exhibited negative (-)PES, and 138 had positive (+)PES and also underwent ICD implantation. The mean follow-up duration was 4.5 years. There was no difference in age or LVEF between the patient groups. We found a trend towards an increased 5-year survival rate in the (+)PES group in whom ICD implantation had been performed (p=0.058). Survival was significantly better in patients under 68 year olds in the (+)PES group in whom ICD implantation was performed (hazard ratio=0.3, p=0.01). The survival rate of patients ≥68 years old was similar in both groups (p=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Non-inducibility during PES does not predict the prognosis of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Danon et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=198). Positive programmed electrical stimulation (+PES) with ICD implantation vs. Negative programmed electrical stimulation (-PES) was evaluated on overall survival (p=0.058). Positive programmed electrical stimulation with ICD implantation showed a trend towards increased 5-year survival compared to negative PES (p=0.058), with significant benefit in patients <68 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: