Key result
Among heart failure patients receiving primary prevention devices, heart failure hospitalizations were significantly more common in those receiving an ICD compared to a CRT-D (67.7% vs 25.8%, P<.001).
Why the study?
What are the long-term outcomes and rates of sudden arrhythmic death in heart failure patients receiving primary prevention ICD or CRT-D devices?
Population
385 heart failure patients with systolic dysfunction who underwent primary prevention ICD/cardiac…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 3.64 ± 2.17 years
Authors
Loading...
HF hospitalization differences should not guide device selection; leaves open whether CRT-D reduces events versus ICD in primary prevention.
Observational (n=385)
What are the long-term outcomes and rates of sudden arrhythmic death in heart failure patients receiving primary prevention ICD or CRT-D devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 67.7% vs 25.8%
p-value: p=<.001
In heart failure patients receiving primary prevention devices, sudden arrhythmic death is rare, and CRT-D is associated with significantly fewer heart failure hospitalizations compared to ICD alone.
Looi et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Heart failure with systolic dysfunction (n=385). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalizations (p=<.001). Among heart failure patients receiving primary prevention devices, heart failure hospitalizations were significantly more common in those receiving an ICD compared to a CRT-D (67.7% vs 25.8%, P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: