Search

Objective: It is not clear whether patients who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention should undergo device replacement if they never experienced an appropriate ICD therapy during the first generator longevity. This study evaluated the incidence and predictors of appropriate ICD therapy after device replacement in this specific population. Methods: From two large prospective ICD registries, we identified all primary prevention patients who had a first ICD replacement without previous appropriate ICD therapy. Cox regression analysis was used to identify predictors of appropriate ICD therapy. Results: Of 403 primary prevention patients needing first ICD replacement, 275 patients (68%) had not received previous appropriate ICD therapy. Patients without previous appropriate ICD therapy before first ICD replacement (mean age at replacement 62±12 years, 75% male) had a mean follow-up of 86±24 months after the initial implantation and 30±24 months after device replacement. Following replacement, 3-year cumulative incidence of appropriate ICD therapy was 13.7% (95% CI 8.6 to 18.8%). No predictive factors associated with appropriate ICD therapy after replacement could be identified in spite of including seven clinically relevant factors. Conclusions: A considerable number of primary prevention patients without previous appropriate ICD therapy before first ICD replacement received appropriate ICD therapy after replacement. As there were no predictors of appropriate ICD therapy after replacement, replacing an ICD is still recommended in all primary prevention patients despite the lack of appropriate ICD therapy during first battery service life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is very effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but its benefit is impaired by competing risks. A simple risk model to predict mortality was designed for patients with primary prevention and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. We aimed to apply this score to a general ICD population. METHODS: This retrospective registry study included all patients in whom an ICD was implanted at a tertiary referral hospital. Risk factors were age >70 years, QRS width >120 ms, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association Functional Classification class >2 and glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed according to the presence of 0, 1, 2 and >2 risk factors. RESULTS: The cohort consists of 1032 patients, 881 (86%) were men, mean age was 61±14 years and mean follow-up 66±46 months. 256 patients (25%) died 58±41 months after implant. The setting was secondary prevention in 498 patients (48%). No risk factors was present in 32% of patients, 1 in 27%, 2 in 20% and >2 in 21%, respectively. There was a significant and comprehensible relation between risk score and mortality. Cumulative survival was 82% in patients with 0 risk factors, 63% in those with 1, 41% in those with 2 and 23% in those with >2 risk factors (p < 0.0001). ICD therapies were documented in 421 patients (41%) without correlation to risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: In a mixed population of primary and secondary preventive ICD carriers, application of a simple risk score predicts long-term mortality but not appropriate use of the ICD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]