scholarly journals Final comment on the debate article “ICD implantation as primary prevention in systemic RV”

2021 ◽  
pp. 100131
Author(s):  
Barbara JM. Mulder ◽  
Mikael Dellborg
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Final Comment

Abstract 12621: Gender Differences Among Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Recipients in the Setting of Primary Prevention

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloi Marijon ◽  
Rui Providencia ◽  
Pascal Defaye ◽  
Didier Klug ◽  
Daniel Gras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Dilated Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Specific Interaction ◽  
Severe Heart Failure ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Functional Class ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background: Data regarding sex specificities in the use, benefits and complications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in primary prevention in the real-world European setting are sparse. Methods: Using a large multicentric cohort of consecutive patients referred for ICD implantation for primary prevention (2002-2012), in the setting of coronary artery disease or dilated cardiomyopathy, we examined potential sex differences in subjects’ characteristics and outcomes. Results: Of 5,539 patients, only 837 (15.1%) were women and 53.8% received cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D). Compared to men, women presented a significantly higher proportion of dilated cardiomyopathy (60.2% vs. 36.2%, P120ms: 74.6% vs. 68.5%, P=0.003), higher New York Heart Association functional class (2.5±0.7 vs. 2.4±0.7, P=0.003) and lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (18.7% vs. 24.9%, P<0.001). During a 16,786 patient-years follow-up, overall, fewer appropriate therapies were observed in women (HR = 0.59, CI95% 0.45-0.76; P<0.001). By contrast, no sex-specific interaction was observed for inappropriate shocks (OR for women = 1.00, 95%CI 0.74-1.35, P=0.997) and mortality (HR = 0.87; 95%CI 0.66-1.15, P=0.324), with similar patterns of cause of deaths. Conclusion: In our real life registry, women account for the minority of ICD recipients. While female ICD recipients present with features of more severe heart failure in the setting of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, we observed they have a 40% lower incidence of appropriate therapies.

Worldwide differences in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator utilization and outcomes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Nauffal ◽  
Peter Marstrand ◽  
Larry Han ◽  
Victoria N Parikh ◽  
Adam S Helms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Icd Therapy ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Implantation Rates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Aims  Risk stratification algorithms for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and regional differences in clinical practice have evolved over time. We sought to compare primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation rates and associated clinical outcomes in US vs. non-US tertiary HCM centres within the international Sarcomeric Human Cardiomyopathy Registry. Methods and results We included patients with HCM enrolled from eight US sites (n = 2650) and five non-US (n = 2660) sites and used multivariable Cox-proportional hazards models to compare outcomes between sites. Primary prevention ICD implantation rates in US sites were two-fold higher than non-US sites (hazard ratio (HR) 2.27 [1.89–2.74]), including in individuals deemed at high 5-year SCD risk (≥6%) based on the HCM risk-SCD score (HR 3.27 [1.76–6.05]). US ICD recipients also had fewer traditional SCD risk factors. Among ICD recipients, rates of appropriate ICD therapy were significantly lower in US vs. non-US sites (HR 0.52 [0.28–0.97]). No significant difference was identified in the incidence of SCD/resuscitated cardiac arrest among non-recipients of ICDs in US vs. non-US sites (HR 1.21 [0.74–1.97]). Conclusion  Primary prevention ICDs are implanted more frequently in patients with HCM in US vs. non-US sites across the spectrum of SCD risk. There was a lower rate of appropriate ICD therapy in US sites, consistent with a lower-risk population, and no significant difference in SCD in US vs. non-US patients who did not receive an ICD. Further studies are needed to understand what drives malignant arrhythmias, optimize ICD allocation, and examine the impact of different ICD utilization strategies on long-term outcomes in HCM.

Abstract 107: Predictors and Frequency of ICD Implantation for Primary Prevention in ICD Eligible Patients: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Registry

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rory Hachamovitch ◽  
Benjamin Nutter ◽  
Manuel D Cerqueira ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Myocardial Imaging ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Multicenter Registry

Background . The use of implantable cardiac defibrillators has been associated with improved survival in several well-defined patient (pt) subsets. Its utilization for primary prevention in eligible pts, however, is unclear. We sought to examine the frequency of ICD implantation (ICD-IMP) for primary prevention in a cohort prospectively enrolled in a prospective, multicenter registry of ICD candidates. Methods . We identified 961 pts enrolled in the AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure (ADMIRE-HF) study, a prospective, multicenter study evaluating the prognostic usefulness of 123I-mIBG scintigraphy in a heart failure population. Inclusion criteria limited patients to those meeting guideline criteria for ICD implantation; these criteria included left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and New York Heart Association functional class II-III. We excluded pts with an ICD at the time of enrollment, leaving a study cohort of 934 patients. Pts were followed up for 24 months after enrollment. Pts undergoing ICD-IMP after enrollment for secondary prevention were censored at the time of intervention. The association between ICD-IMP utilization and demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging data was examined using Cox proportional hazards analysis (CPH). Results . Of 934 pts, 196 (21%) were referred for ICD-IMP over a mean follow-up of 612±242 days. Implantations occurred 167±164 days after enrollment. Patients referred for ICD were younger (61±12 vs. 63±12), but did not differ with respect to proportion female (17% vs. 21%), African-American race (12% vs. 15%), diabetics (37% vs. 36%) (All p=NS). The frequency of ICD-IMP did not differ as a function of age, race, sex, LVEF, or imaging result (All p=NS). CPH revealed that a model including age, race, sex, diabetes, smoking, BMI, NYHA class, hypertension, heart failure etiology, and prior MI identified none of these as predictive of ICD-IMP. Conclusion: This analysis of prospective registry data reveals that in patients who are guideline-defined candidates for ICD-IMP, only about one in five receive an ICD over a two year follow-up interval. Multivariable modeling failed to identify any factor associated with ICD use.

Abstract 1158: Sudden Death in Children with Cardiomyopathy: Long Term Follow-Up from a National Population-Based Study of Childhood Cardiomyopathy

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara Bharucha ◽  
Andrew M Davis ◽  
Christian Turner ◽  
Robert Justo ◽  
Terry Robertson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Sudden Death ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Population Based Study ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction Better data regarding the incidence and risk factors for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children with cardiomyopathy (CM) is critical in defining appropriate primary prevention strategies. Methods The National Australian Childhood Cardiomyopathy Study is a prospective cohort study, including all children in Australia with primary CM diagnosed at 0 – 10 years of age, between 1987–1997. SCD was defined as sudden and unexpected death in children who were not hospitalized and not in congestive heart failure at the time of death. Nine subjects with sudden death as presenting symptom were excluded. Indexed echocardiographic measurements at latest follow-up were compared between subjects with SCD and survivors. Results Study criteria were met by 291 children. Mean duration of follow-up was 9.2 years. The incidence of sudden death relative to each CM type, for all cases and as a proportion of deaths, is shown in the Table : Incidence of SCD by CM type. SCD incidence was significantly associated with CM type, for all cases ( p = 0.006) and when only those subjects who died were considered ( p = 0.005), with LVNC and RCM having up to 4 times the risk of other CM types. Children with familial DCM had a significantly higher rate of SCD than subjects with non-familial CM (12% vs 3%; p = 0.028), however, familial CM was not a risk factor in other CM types. DCM SCD subjects had larger LVEDd Z score than survivors (median 5.53 vs 1.16; p <0.0001) and lower FS Z score (median −9.23 vs −0.51; p = 0.0025). HCM SCD subjects had thicker LVPW dimension Z scores than survivors (median 4.63 vs 1.18; p = 0.007). Twelve subjects (2 DCM, 8 HCM and 2 LVNC) underwent ICD implantation (8/12 for primary prevention). Conclusions: This population based study defines new risk factors for sudden death in children with CM. RCM is well known to have a high incidence of SCD. In addition, children with LVNC and those with DCM who have severe dilatation, systolic dysfunction or familial DCM are at increased risk of sudden death.

Abstract 11447: Low Incidence of Appropriate Therapy Following Defibrillator Implantation for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalie C Thavikulwat ◽  
Todd T Tomson ◽  
Bradley P Knight ◽  
Robert O Bonow ◽  
Lubna Choudhury
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Icd Therapy ◽  
Appropriate Therapy

Introduction: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a leading cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young adults. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) effectively terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation (VF) that cause SCD, but the reported prevalence of and patient characteristics leading to appropriate ICD therapy in HCM have been variable. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that some risk factors may be more prevalent than others in patients with HCM who receive appropriate ICD therapy and that the overall incidence of appropriate therapy may be lower than that reported previously. Methods: We retrospectively studied all patients with HCM who were treated with ICDs at our referral center from 2000-2013 to determine the rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies. Results: Of 1136 patients with HCM, we identified 135 who underwent ICD implantation (125 for primary and 10 for secondary prevention), aged 18-81 years (mean 48±17) at the time of implantation. The mean follow-up time was 5.2±4.5 years. Appropriate ICD intervention occurred in 20 of 135 patients (2.8%/year) by providing a shock or antitachycardia pacing in response to VT or VF. The annual rate of appropriate ICD therapy was 2.4%/year for primary and 7.2%/year for secondary prevention devices. Commonly used risk factors were equally prevalent among patients who received appropriate therapy and those who did not; furthermore, the likelihood of receiving appropriate therapy in the presence of each risk factor was similar (Figure). Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred in 27 patients (3.8%/year). Conclusions: ICDs provide clear benefit to patients who experience life-threatening arrhythmias, particularly those being treated for secondary prevention. However, the appropriate therapy rate for primary prevention was lower than previously reported, and no single risk factor appeared to have stronger association with appropriate ICD therapy than others.

5968Adherence to driving restrictions among patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: insights from a nationwide register-linked survey study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Bjerre ◽  
S M Rosenkranz ◽  
M Schou ◽  
C Jons ◽  
B T Philbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Driving Restrictions ◽  
Driver's License ◽  
Icd Shock

Abstract Background Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are restricted from driving following initial implantation or ICD shock. It is unclear how many patients are aware of, and adhere to, these restrictions. Purpose To investigate knowledge of, and adherence to, private and professional driving restrictions in a nationwide cohort of ICD patients. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to all living Danish residents ≥18 years who received a first-time ICD between 2013 and 2016 (n=3,913). During this period, Danish guidelines recommended 1 week driving restriction following ICD implantation for primary prevention, and 3 months following either ICD implantation for secondary prevention or appropriate ICD shock, and permanent restriction of professional driving and driving of large vehicles (>3.5 metric tons). Questionnaires were linked with relevant nationwide registries. Logistic regression was applied to identify factors associated with non-adherence. Results Of 2,741 questionnaire respondents, 92% (n=2,513) held a valid private driver's license at time of ICD implantation (85% male; 46% primary prevention indication; median age: 67 years (IQR: 59–73)). Of these, 7% (n=175) were actively using a professional driver's license for truck driving (n=73), bus driving (n=45), taxi driving (n=22), large vehicle driving for private use (n=54), or other purposes (n=32) (multiple purposes allowed). Only 42% of primary prevention patients, 63% of secondary prevention patients, and 72% of patients who experienced an appropriate ICD shock, recalled being informed of any driving restrictions. Only 45% of professional drivers recalled being informed about specific professional driving restrictions (Figure). Most patients (93%, n=2,344) resumed private driving after ICD implantation, more than 30% during the driving restriction period: 34% of primary prevention patients resumed driving within 1 week, 43% of secondary prevention patients resumed driving within 3 months, and 30% of patients who experienced an appropriate ICD shock resumed driving within 3 months. Professional driving was resumed by 35%. Patients who resumed driving within the restricted periods were less likely to report having received information about driving restrictions (all p<0.001) (Figure). In a multiple logistic regression model, non-adherence was predicted by reporting non-receipt of information about driving restrictions (OR: 3.34, CI: 2.27–4.03), as well as male sex (OR: 1.53, CI: 1.17–2.01), age ≥60 years (OR: 1.20, CI: 1.02–1.64), receipt of a secondary prevention ICD (OR: 2.2, CI: 1.80–2.62), and being the only driver in the household (OR: 1.29, CI: 1.05–1.57). Conclusion In this nationwide survey study, many ICD patients were unaware of the driving restrictions, and many ICD patients, including professional drivers, resumed driving within the restricted periods. More focus on communicating driving restrictions might improve adherence. Acknowledgement/Funding Danish Heart Foundation, Arvid Nilsson Foundation, Fraenkels Mindefond

P2279First clinical evaluation of subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator in Brugada patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Probst ◽  
G Clerici ◽  
D Babuty ◽  
N Badenco ◽  
C Marquie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Type I ◽  
Inappropriate Shock ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Pass System ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an inherited arrhythmia syndrome with an increased risk of SCD. While Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is a seductive approach to treat these patients, questions raised on the risk of inappropriate shock in this specific population. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the effectiveness of the S-ICD in BrS patients. Methods We prospectively enrolled 112 BrS patients implanted with S-ICD in 17 European centers. During the screening at least 2 vectors must be suitable but it was not necessary to check for the suitability of the ECG during sodium channel blocker or exercise test. S-ICD indications follow the current guidelines. Results Mean age of patients was 45±13 years, with 95 (85%) males. Implantation was performed in 91 (83%) patients for primary prevention and in 18 (16%) patients for secondary prevention. There is an indication of ICD replacement for 16 patients (14%): 13 lead defect (81%), 1 infection (6%) and 2 ICD end of life (13%). In this cohort, 57 patients (51%) had spontaneous type I BrS, 60 patients (55%) were symptomatic: 10 resuscitated SCD (17%) and 48 (83%) syncope. Implantation was performed under general anesthesia in 79 patients (71%). The mean operation time was 56±19 min. The lead was placed at the left side of the sternum in 102 patients (92%) and at the right side in 9 (8%). Sensing configuration was the primary vector for 46 patients (41%), secondary vector for 57 (51%) and alternative vector for 9 (8%). No complications occurred during implantation. During a mean follow-up of 15.6 months (0–39 months), 6 patients (5%) had at least one appropriate shock (n=9). The rate of appropriate shock was 4.5%/y. All the VF episodes were successfully treated with the first shock. One patient had VF ablation for recurrent VF. Among the 6 patients who received an appropriate shock, 3 (50%) were implanted for secondary prevention and 3 (50%) were implanted for primary prevention including 2 patients with a history of syncope and one asymptomatic patient. Twelve patients (11%) had at least one inappropriate shock (n=22) including 2 patients with respectively 8 and 4 inappropriate shocks due to T-wave oversensing. With the SMART pass system the first patient had no more inappropriate shock for now 2 years. The rate of inappropriate shock was 9%/y. One patient died of myocardial infarction. Five patients (4%) were hospitalized for complications (4 pocket or scar infections and 1 electrode failure). Conclusion Our initial experience showed that S-ICD is efficient to treat VF episode in BrS patients. In this population, the rate of inappropriate shock was 9%/y. In view of these results, S-ICD implantation seems to be efficient to protect BrS patients against SCD. Acknowledgement/Funding Investigator-Sponsored Research program, Boston Scientific

P1658Pharmacological treatment of patients with HFrEF: is it really optimized in case of CRT and/or ICD implantation?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Logeart ◽  
R Isnard ◽  
T Damy ◽  
M Salvat ◽  
J C Eicher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Pharmacological Treatment ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Multicenter Survey ◽  
Mineralocorticoid Antagonists

Abstract Background Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) as well as implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention should be considered in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) only when pharmacological treatment has been optimized. Purpose we sought to analyze pharmacological treatments according to the presence or not of CRT-P, CRT-D or ICD in real life HFrEF patients by using a multicenter survey. Methods the survey (NCT01956539) was carried out between 2015 and 2018 in 32 hospitals and included 2735 patients with HF who gave their consent during consultation or hospitalization. In this study, we analyzed only outpatients with chronic HFrEF treated for more than 6 months. Results among 1061 patients studied, 138 had CRT-P or CRT-D and 215 had ICD for primary prevention. The main clinical characteristics were: age 65±13 years, ischemic heart disease in, NYHA classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 in 15%, 52%, 23% and 10% cases respectively, systolic blood pressure 115mmHg [IQR 104–129], heart rate 70bpm [IQR 60–80], eGFR 64ml/min/1.73m2 [IQR 46–83]and LVEF was 30% [IQR 24–34]. The table shows the rate of use of evidence-based drugs and the dose for ACEi/ARB and betablockers, according to the presence of ICD or CRT. HFrEF CRT-P or D ICD (primary prevention) n=1061 n=138 n=215 Loop diuretics 78.2% 79.7% 74.9% ACEi or ARB 65.2% 75.4% 67.3% Sacubitril/valsartan 5.9% 8.5% 9.5% Betablockers 72.3% 83.9% 76.8% Mineralocorticoid antagonists 45.7% 63.6% 60.2% ACEi/ARB mean % maxi dose 77 81 83 Beta-blockers mean % maxi dose 74 63 79 Conclusion these results suggest that pharmacological treatment remains poorly optimized in a number of patients with HFrEF who received ICD or CRT

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the EU-CERT-ICD controlled multicentre cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (36) ◽  
pp. 3437-3447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Zabel ◽  
Rik Willems ◽  
Andrzej Lubinski ◽  
Axel Bauer ◽  
Josep Brugada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Abstract Aims The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class &lt;III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). Conclusion In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

scholarly journals Usefulness of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in a S-ICD Patient Cohort

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Willy ◽  
Julia Köbe ◽  
Florian Reinke ◽  
Benjamin Rath ◽  
Christian Ellermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Structural Heart Disease ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
General Validity ◽  
Arrhythmic Death ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Background: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is used in an increasing number of patients for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current ICD guidelines. To help evaluating the patient’s individual risk, a new score trying to predict the benefit of an ICD implantation for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, which tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death, has been proposed. We therefore aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single centre register of S-ICD patients Methods and results: All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single centre database were included in the analysis (n=173). During a follow-up of 1227±978 days 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. Occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score (p=0.3) in patients with (n=142, p=0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n=31, p=0.88). However, there was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n=29, p=0.04). Only one parameter (non-sustained ventricular tachycardia) was significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (p=0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score (p=0.001, r=0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI <23 kg/m2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score.Conclusion: The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. However, in our S-ICD cohort, the only group in which the score worked properly for prediction of sudden and non-sudden death were ICM patients, so that a larger validation in more heterogeneous cohorts in mandatory to claim general validity for this score in risk stratification for primary preventive ICD implantation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document