Prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to usual clinical care (HR 0.87; P=0.28).
Does prophylactic ICD implantation reduce the long-term rate of death from any cause in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease?
Patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease (nonischemic systolic heart failure)
Prophylactic ICD implantation
Usual clinical care
Long-term rate of death from any causehard clinical
Prophylactic ICD implantation does not significantly improve overall survival compared to usual clinical care in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
BACKGROUND: The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: After a median follow-up period of 67.6 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 120 patients (21.6%) in the ICD group and in 131 patients (23.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28). Sudden cardiac death occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) in the ICD group and in 46 patients (8.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.82; P=0.005). Device infection occurred in 27 patients (4.9%) in the ICD group and in 20 patients (3.6%) in the control group (P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care. (Funded by Medtronic and others; DANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542945 .).
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Lars Køber
Statens Serum Institut
Jens Jakob Thune
Heart Failure & Transplant
Jens Cosedis Nielsen
Electrophysiology
New England Journal of Medicine
University of Copenhagen
Rigshospitalet
Aarhus University Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Køber et al. (Sun,) reported a other. Prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to usual clinical care (HR 0.87; P=0.28).
synapsesocial.com/papers/697a3929e3885199a727c622 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1608029
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: