Back to Search Start Over

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy among patients with non-ischaemic vs. ischaemic cardiomyopathy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Authors :
Amara N
Boveda S
Defaye P
Klug D
Treguer F
Amet D
Perier MC
Gras D
Algalarrondo V
Bouzeman A
Piot O
Deharo JC
Fauchier L
Babuty D
Bordachar P
Sadoul N
Marijon E
Leclercq C
Source :
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology [Europace] 2018 Jan 01; Vol. 20 (1), pp. 65-72.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Aim: The magnitude of benefit related to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) has not been evaluated extensively in clinical practice.<br />Methods and Results: Of the 5539 consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre Défibrillateur Automatique Implantable-Prévention Primaire (DAI-PP) study (2002-12), 5485 patients (with information on underlying heart disease) were included in the present analysis: 2181 (39.8%) had NICM and 3304 (60.2%) had ICM. ICM patients were older (63.7 ±10.3 vs. 60.6 ± 12.2 years, P < 0.0001), with a higher ejection fraction [27% (25-30) vs. 25% (20-30), P < 0.0001], narrower QRS (37.3% vs. 21.4% with QRS <120, P < 0.0001), and higher prevalence of sinus rhythm (77.3% vs. 74.0%, P = 0.009). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 2.2 years, 814 patients died, giving a mortality incidence of 48.6 per 1000 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.2-51.9], higher among ICM patients (52.3, 95% CI 47.8-56.7) than in NICM patients (42.4, 95% CI 37.3-47.6; P = 0.008) (adjusted hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.61, P = 0.01). The increase in mortality among ICM patients was mainly due to non-cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.0002), whereas incidences of cardiovascular mortality (including ICD-unresponsive SCD) were similar in the two groups. Incidences of appropriate ICD interventions (anti-tachycardia pacing, shocks) were similar, but inappropriate therapies were more frequent in NICM (7.94 vs. 5.96%; P = 0.005).<br />Conclusion: NICM and ICM patients had a same rate of ICD therapy for primary prevention of SCD in everyday practice. But, ICM patients more often died of a non- cardiovascular cause of death.<br />Clinical Trial Registration: NCT 01992458.<br /> (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1532-2092
Volume :
20
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
28082419
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw379