Key result
Nonischemic cardiomyopathy shows no difference in mortality or malignant arrhythmias versus ischemic etiology in primary-prevention ICDs.
Why the study?
Two large randomized trials showed no effect of ICD implantation on total mortality in nonischemic DCM despite a significant reduction in SCD, prompting an analysis of real data on malignant arrhythmia and death outcomes in ischemic and nonischemic DCM from a single center.
Observational (n=33)
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates malignant arrhythmia and mortality in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy with defibrillators, highlighting etiology-specific survival differences.
Objectives: The indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), ischemic or nonischemic genesis, after three months of optimal medical therapy, with expected survival for more than one year 1 . Available data from two large randomized trials show there was no effect of ICD implantation in patients with nonischemic DCM in total mortality, but there was a significant reduction of sudden cardiac death (SCD) 2,3 . The aim of this study was to analyze real data from our center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stipinović et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Dilated cardiomyopathy (ischemic and nonischemic) with implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (n=33). Nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy etiology in ICD recipients vs. Ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy etiology in ICD recipients was evaluated on All-cause mortality (p=0.48). Nonischemic versus ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy in primary-prevention ICD recipients showed no significant difference in mortality or malignant arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: