March 8, 2022Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Ventricular arrhythmia burden and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator outcomes in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis
Key result
Primary prevention ICDs show no survival benefit in ATTR-CM patients with EF ≤ 35%.
- P=.699
- n=130
Why the study?
As targeted treatments for ATTR-CM emerge, data were needed to characterize rates of ventricular arrhythmias, ICD utilization, and their impact on survival.
Population
130 patients with ATTR-CM diagnosed at a single center
Comparison
Patients with vs without ICDs, or stratified by EF
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
No survival benefit with primary prevention ICDs in low-EF ATTR-CM; leaves open optimal device strategies pending prospective trials.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=130)
Multicenter
No
PICO
P
Population
130 patients with ATTR-CM (42 wild-type, 88 hereditary) diagnosed at a single center between 2012 and 2020.
E
Exposure / Comparator
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs No ICD
O
Primary Outcome
Survival (years), p=.699
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 3.3% vs 2.8%
p-value: p=.699
Cite This Study
Brown et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in amyloid transthyretin cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) (n=130). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD was evaluated on Survival (years) (p=.699). Primary prevention ICD implantation in ATTR-CM patients with EF ≤ 35% did not significantly improve survival compared to those without ICDs (3.3 vs. 2.8 years, p=0.699).