Long-term follow-up of patients treated with ICD: benefit in patients with preserved left ventricular function.
ABSTRACT Most major defibrillator trials have short follow-up and may neither capture the benefit for those with preserved function nor the progressive nature of advanced heart disease. We intended to investigate the long-term outcome in an unselected population of patients treated with ICD.
We followed 124 consecutive patients that received an ICD during 1993-2002 at our institution for a median of 6.1 years. Information about heart disease, index arrhythmia, follow-up and death was extracted from medical records.
The crude mortality was 26% (32/124). One- and two-year mortality was 6% and 12%, estimated 5- and 10-year mortality 20% and 33%. The cause of death was heart failure in 75% of deaths. The ejection fraction was below 35% in 91% of the 32 patients who died. We estimated that 28% of the patients received lifesaving therapy. The relative number of saved lives and complications was not related to the ejection fraction.
Patients with preserved left ventricular function are excellent candidates for ICD, with life-saving ICD therapies in a substantial proportion, low mortality and good quality of life.
- SourceAvailable from: Ralf Lichtinghagen[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Identification of risk factors for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) occurrence in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is reasonable, because ICD patients with multiple risk factors might benefit from more aggressive anti-arrhythmic therapy for the prevention of arrhythmic events. Furthermore, in the era of prophylactic ICD therapy and limited healthcare resources, additional markers are needed for improved patient selection. Thus, in Prospective Analysis of Risk Factor for Appropriate ICD Therapy (PROFIT), we prospectively analyzed the role of ejection fraction (EF), N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, atrial fibrillation, and QRS-duration as independent predictors for VT/VF occurrence in 250 ICD patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that EF<40% (log-rank P=0.001), NT-proBNP levels higher than median (>or=405 ng/L; log-rank P=0.04), QRS-duration >or=150 ms (log-rank P=0.016), permanent atrial fibrillation (log-rank P=0.008), and higher NYHA class (log-rank P=0.029) were associated with VT/VF occurrence. By multivariate Cox regression analysis EF, QRS-duration and atrial fibrillation remained significantly associated with appropriate VT/VF therapy, whereas there was no relationship among NT-proBNP, NYHA class, and VT/VF occurrence. Stratifying patients according to the number of their independent risk factors (EF<40%, AF, QRS-width>or=150 ms) showed that patients with greater than or equal to two risk factors had a 100% 2-year risk of VT/VF occurrence, whereas patients with no or one risk factor had a 19.3 and 25% 2-year risk, respectively. EF<40%, permanent atrial fibrillation, and QRS>or=150 ms are independent predictors for VT/VF occurrence in predominantly secondary prophylactic ICD patients. Combining all independent predictors, we developed a risk score for VT/VF occurrence identifying a subgroup of patients with two or more risk factors who had a 100% 2-year risk. Future studies will reveal if this risk score helps to identify ICD patients suitable for empirical anti-arrhythmic therapy and to improve patient selection for prophylactic ICD therapy.Europace 09/2006; 8(8):618-24. · 2.77 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shock-only, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.New England Journal of Medicine 02/2005; 352(3):225-37. · 51.66 Impact Factor
Article: Do baseline characteristics accurately discriminate between patients likely versus unlikely to benefit from implantable defibrillator therapy? Evaluation of the Canadian implantable defibrillator study implantable cardioverter defibrillatory efficacy score in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Our purpose was to evaluate whether baseline characteristics predictive of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) efficacy in the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) are predictive in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. ICD therapy is superior to antiarrhythmic drug use in patients with life-threatening arrhythmias. However, identification of subgroups most likely to benefit from ICD therapy may be useful. Data from CIDS suggest that 3 characteristics (age > or =70 years, ejection fraction [EF] < or =0.35, and New York Heart Association class >II) can be combined to reliably categorize patients as likely (> or =2 characteristics) versus unlikely to benefit (<2 characteristics) from ICD therapy. The utility of the CIDS categorization of ICD efficacy was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox hazards modeling. The accuracy of the CIDS score was formally tested by evaluating for interaction between categorization of benefit and treatment in a Cox model. ICD therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of death in the 320 patients categorized as likely to benefit (relative risk [RR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.88, P =.01) and a trend toward a lower risk of death in the 689 patients categorized as unlikely to benefit (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48-1.03, P =.07). Categorization of benefit was imperfect, as evidenced by a lack of statistical interaction (P =.5). Although 32 of the 42 deaths prevented by ICD therapy in AVID were in patients categorized as likely to benefit, all 42 of these patients had EF values < or =0.35. Neither advanced age nor poorer functional class predicted ICD efficacy in AVID. Of the 3 characteristics identified to predict ICD efficacy in CIDS, only depressed EF predicted ICD efficacy in AVID. Thus physicians faced with limited resources might elect to consider ICD therapy over antiarrhythmic drug use in patients with severely depressed EF values.American Heart Journal 01/2001; 141(1):99-104. · 4.50 Impact Factor