TY - JOUR
T1 - Persistence of ICD indication at the time of replacement in patients with initial implant for primary prevention indication
T2 - Effect on subsequent ICD therapies
AU - Dell'Era, Gabriele
AU - Degiovanni, Anna
AU - Occhetta, Eraldo
AU - Magnani, Andrea
AU - Bortnik, Miriam
AU - Francalacci, Gabriella
AU - Plebani, Laura
AU - Prenna, Eleonora
AU - Valsecchi, Sergio
AU - Marino, Paolo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Indian Heart Rhythm Society
PY - 2017/3
Y1 - 2017/3
N2 - Background Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. Methods We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. Results At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.96; p = 0.041). Conclusion In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.
AB - Background Indication to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden death relies on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We measured the proportion of patients in whom indication to ICD persisted at the time of generator replacement (GR) and searched for predictors of appropriate therapies after GR. Methods We identified all consecutive patients who had received an ICD at our hospital, for LVEF ≤35% and no previous arrhythmias or unexplained syncope. Then, we included the 166 patients who outlived their first device and underwent GR. Results At the time of GR (mean follow-up 59 ± 20 months), ICD indication (i.e. LVEF ≤35% or previously treated ventricular arrhythmias) persisted in 114 (69%) patients. After GR, appropriate ICD therapies were delivered in 30 (26%) patients with persistent ICD indication and in 12 (23%) of the remaining patients (p = 0.656). Nonetheless, the annual rate of therapies was higher in the first group (1.08 versus 0.53 events/year; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of inappropriate therapies (0.03 versus 0 events/year; p = 0.031). The only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies after GR was the rate of shocks received before replacement (Hazard Ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.96; p = 0.041). Conclusion In heart failure with reduced LVEF, ICD indication persisted at the time of GR in 69% of patients. However, even in the absence of persistent ICD indication at GR, the risk of recurrence of arrhythmic events was not null.
KW - ICD
KW - Left ventricular ejection fraction
KW - Replacement
KW - Sudden cardiac death
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006923076&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ipej.2016.11.008
DO - 10.1016/j.ipej.2016.11.008
M3 - Article
SN - 0972-6292
VL - 17
SP - 29
EP - 33
JO - Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
JF - Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal
IS - 2
ER -