Key result
Diabetes in patients with prophylactic ICDs was associated with a lower risk of appropriate shocks (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.96) but higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.11-1.53).
Why the study?
Diabetes increases the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death, but the exact mechanisms leading to sudden death in diabetes are not well known.
Does a history of diabetes affect the incidence of appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with prophylactic ICDs?
Cohort (n=3,535)
Yes
Does a history of diabetes affect the incidence of appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with prophylactic ICDs?
Hazard Ratio: 0.77 (95% CI 0.62–0.96)
p-value: p=0.02
In patients with primary prophylactic ICDs, diabetes is associated with higher all-cause mortality but fewer appropriate shocks, suggesting competing non-arrhythmic risks may limit the survival benefit of ICDs in this population.
May attenuate prophylactic ICD survival benefit via competing mortality in diabetes; hypothesis-generating for arrhythmic risk modification.
OBJECTIVE Diabetes increases the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). The exact mechanisms leading to sudden death in diabetes are not well known. We compared the incidence of appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with versus without diabetes with a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) included in the retrospective EU-CERT-ICD registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 3,535 patients from 12 European EU-CERT-ICD centers with a mean age of 63.7 ± 11.2 years (82% males) at the time of ICD implantation were included in the analysis. A total of 995 patients (28%) had a history of diabetes. All patients had an ICD implanted for primary SCD prevention. End points were appropriate shock and all-cause mortality. Mean follow-up time was 3.2 ± 2.3 years. Diabetes was associated with a lower risk of appropriate shocks (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.62–0.96], P = 0.02). However, patients with diabetes had significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.11–1.53], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS All-cause mortality is higher in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes with primary prophylactic ICDs. Subsequently, patients with diabetes have a lower incidence of appropriate ICD shocks, indicating that the excess mortality might not be caused primarily by ventricular tachyarrhythmias. These findings suggest a limitation of the potential of prophylactic ICD therapy to improve survival in patients with diabetes with impaired left ventricular function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Junttila et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Primary sudden cardiac death prevention with prophylactic ICD (n=3,535). Diabetes vs. No diabetes was evaluated on Appropriate shocks (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.96, p=0.02). Diabetes in patients with prophylactic ICDs was associated with a lower risk of appropriate shocks (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.96) but higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.11-1.53).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: