Among SCAD patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest, 20% received an ICD, with appropriate ICD therapy occurring in only 1.2% (95% CI 0-15.8%) over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years.
Meta-Analysis (n=139)
What are the outcomes and the role of secondary prevention ICD therapy in SCAD patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest?
In SCAD patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest, the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy is low (1.2%), highlighting the need for careful risk-benefit assessment before secondary prevention ICD implantation.
Abstract Introduction The role of secondary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) remains uncertain in spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). Methods We aimed at assessing the outcomes following SCA and the role of ICD therapy in SCAD. The meta‐analysis was performed using a meta‐package for R version 4.0/RStudio version 1.2 and the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine method to establish the variance of raw proportions. Outcomes measured included—(1) incidence of ICD implantation, (2) appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, (3) recurrence of SCAD and SCA, and (4) all‐cause mortality. Results Five studies, including 139 SCAD patients with SCA met study inclusion criteria. The mean age was 47.3 ± 12.8 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 43.8 ± 10.8%, 88% were female (12% had pregnancy‐associated SCAD. Causes of SCA included ventricular arrhythmia (97.9%, n = 136) and pulseless electrical activity (2.1%, n = 3). Overall, 20% patients (95% confidence interval CI: 7.1%–36.6%, I 2 = 68%) received ICD, of which 1.2% (95% CI: 0%–15.8%, I 2 = 0%) and 1% (95% CI: 0%–15.3%, I 2 = 0%) patients received appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, respectively, during follow‐up period (4.1 ± 3.3 years). Incidence of recurrent SCAD was 9% (95% CI: 2.85%–17.5%, I 2 = 25%), and recurrent SCA was 3.85% patients (95% CI: 0.65%–8.7%, I 2 = 0%; one patient with appropriate ICD therapy). The pooled incidence of all‐cause mortality was 6.2% (95% CI: 0.6%–15.1%, I 2 = 44%). Conclusion Although ICD therapy is beneficial in patients (all comers) presenting with cardiac arrest; the risk‐benefit ratio of secondary prevention ICD arrest remains unclear. Patient‐centered shared decision‐making and risk‐benefit ratio assessment should be performed before consideration for ICD implantation.
Garg et al. (Wed,) conducted a meta-analysis in Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) presenting with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) (n=139). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was evaluated on Appropriate ICD therapy (95% CI 0-15.8). Among SCAD patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest, 20% received an ICD, with appropriate ICD therapy occurring in only 1.2% (95% CI 0-15.8%) over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years.