Key result
ICD use in survivors of early post-MI ventricular arrhythmia is linked to ~147% higher mortality.
Why the study?
Recent guidelines for ICD use in patients with early ventricular arrhythmia after acute MI are based on systolic function and revascularization status, yet ICD implantation decisions remain highly subjective.
Does ICD implantation improve survival in patients with early ventricular arrhythmia (<48 h) after acute myocardial infarction?
Comparison
ICD recipients vs non-ICD recipients
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
Median 2.4 years
Authors
Loading...
ICD selection after early post-MI VA should remain individualized beyond LVEF; leaves open whether VA type or other factors improve risk stratification.
Cohort (n=128)
Does ICD implantation improve survival in patients with early ventricular arrhythmia (<48 h) after acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 42% vs 17%
p-value: p=0.02
In survivors of early ventricular arrhythmia post-MI, ICD implantation was associated with higher mortality, likely reflecting a sicker cohort with non-reversible arrhythmogenic substrate, though utilization aligned with Appropriate Use Criteria.
Liang et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Early ventricular arrhythmia after acute myocardial infarction (n=128). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Non-ICD recipients was evaluated on Mortality (p=0.02). Among survivors of early ventricular arrhythmia after acute MI, ICD recipients had a higher mortality rate than non-ICD recipients (42% vs. 17%; P=0.02) over a median 2.4 years of follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: