Indication to cardioverter-defibrillator therapy and outcome in real world primary prevention. Data from the IRIDE [Italian registry of prophylactic implantation of defibrillators] study

Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria "S. Maria della Misericordia" and IRCAB Foundation, SOC Cardiologia, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: .
International journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 4.04). 12/2012; 168(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.12.042
Source: PubMed


Several trials demonstrated the life saving role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The aim was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and 4-year outcome of consecutive patients treated in clinical practice by prophylactic ICD implantation on the basis of class I recommendations and up-to-date ICD programming.

Methods and results:
IRIDE multi-center, prospective and observational study enrolled 604 consecutive patients (mean age: 66 ± 10 years) treated by ICD between 01/01/2006 and 30/06/2010. Main characteristics were similarly distributed among the inclusion criteria of MADIT II (24%), SCD-HeFT (24%), COMPANION (26%) and MADIT-CRT (18%) trials, while a small number of patients met the MUSTT and MADIT (7%) inclusion criteria. Single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 168 (28%) patients, dual-chamber in 167 (28%) and biventricular in 269 (43%) patients. ATP programming was activated in 546 (90%) patients. Overall survival and rate of appropriate ICD intervention by ATP and/or shock at 12-24-36-48 months of follow-up were 94%, 89%, 80%, 75% and 16%, 28%, 37% and 50%, respectively. No difference in mortality rate between the groups who received or did not receive appropriate ICD interventions was demonstrated (p=ns).

The IRIDE study confirms the effectiveness in real world practice of ICD implantation in patients at risk of SCD. The life saving role of ICD therapy increases as the duration of follow-up is prolonged and the survival benefit is similar in patients who received or did not receive appropriate device treatment, thus suggesting a beneficial effect of up-to-date device programming.

Download full-text


Available from: Daniele Muser, Aug 12, 2015
6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this EHRA survey was to examine the current clinical practice of screening and risk evaluation for sudden cardiac death in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy with a focus on selection of candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, timing of ICD implantation, and use of non-invasive and invasive diagnostic tests across Europe. A systematic screening programme for sudden cardiac death existed in 19 out of 31 centres (61.3%). Implantation of ICDs according to the inclusion criteria of MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT trials was reported in 30 and 29% of centres, respectively, followed by MADIT-CRT (18%), COMPANION (16%), and combined MADIT and MUSTT (7%) indications. In patients with severe renal impairment, ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death was always avoided in 8 centres (33.3%), was not used only if creatinine level was >2.5 mg/dL in 10 centres (32.2%), and in patients with permanent dialysis in 8 centres (33.3%). Signal-averaged electrocardiography and heart rate variability were never considered as risk stratification tools in 23 centres (74.2%). Implantation of a loop recorder was performed in patients with borderline indications for ICD therapy in 6 centres (19.4%), for research purposes in 5 (16.1%), and was never performed in 20 (64.5%) centres. In conclusion, the majority of participating European centres have a screening programme for sudden cardiac death and the selection of candidates for ICD therapy was mainly based on the clinical risk stratification and not on non-invasive and invasive diagnostic tests or implantable loop recorder use.
    Europace 07/2013; 15(7):1059-62. DOI:10.1093/europace/eut187 · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is inevitable that all patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) will die during extended follow-up. End-of-life care planning may become appropriate as a patient's condition deteriorates. There is concern about multiple futile shocks in the final hours of life, although the incidence of this problem has been estimated at only 8-16%. Despite broad consensus that ICD deactivation should be discussed as part of end-of-life care planning, the effect of ICD deactivation, in particular whether life expectancy is altered, is uncertain. Many clinicians are reluctant to discuss ICD deactivation. Many patients have misconceptions regarding ICD function and value longevity above quality of life. As such, ICD deactivation is often discussed late or not at all. The management of ICDs in patients approaching death is likely to become a major problem in the coming years. This article will discuss directions in which clinical practice might develop and areas for future research.
    Future Cardiology 11/2013; 9(6):885-96. DOI:10.2217/fca.13.81
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF) is a common condition in elderly patients. Despite great improvements in medical therapy, HF mortality remains high. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) significantly lengthens the survival rate of subjects with severe HF, but little evidence exists on its effect in elderly persons. Aim of this study was to compare the age-related determinants of prognosis in a large population of patients with ICD. We divided all patients who underwent an ICD implantation in 117 Italian centers of the "ClinicalService Project" into 3 age groups (<65, 65 to 74, ≥75 years), and collected clinical and instrumental variables at baseline and during follow-up (median length: 27 months). Between 2004 and 2011, 6,311 patients were enrolled (5,174 men; left ventricular ejection fraction 29% ± 9%); 1,510 subjects were ≥75 years (23.9%; mean age 78 ± 3 years). The prevalence of co-morbidities increased with age. HF was most frequently due to coronary artery disease in the elderly, who also showed the worst New York Heart Association class. At multivariate analysis, older age, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure, diabetes, complex ventricular arrhythmias, and left ventricular ejection fraction were significant predictors of all-cause mortality. After adjustment, the hazard ratioage group for mortality was 22.6% less than at univariate analysis. When groups were analyzed separately, age alone predicted mortality in the oldest. In conclusion, a large proportion of our population was aged ≥75 years. Mortality was related to age and several co-morbidities, except for the oldest patients in whom age alone resulted predictive.
    The American journal of cardiology 05/2014; 113(10):1691-6. DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.02.025 · 3.28 Impact Factor
Show more