Academic literature on the topic 'Prophylactic ICD-implantation'

Abstract Aims Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment prevents sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients. This study examined geographical variation in ICD implantation rates in Denmark and potential causes of variation. Methods and results We obtained numbers of ICD implantations in the 5 Danish regions and 98 municipalities during 2007–13 from the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Registry. Standardized implantation rates (SIRs) were computed as ICD implantations per 1 000 000 person-years, and age- and gender-standardized to the Danish population. We examined associations of the municipal SIR with mean age and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ICD recipients, percentage of implantations with primary prophylactic indication, and distance from patient residency to ICD implanting centre. Based on 7192 ICD implantations, the nationwide SIR was 186 [95% confidence interval (CI) 182–190], ranging from 170 (95% CI 158–183) in the North Denmark Region to 206 (95% CI 195–218) in the Region of Zealand. Municipalities with higher patient comorbidity scores, higher percentages of implantations with primary prophylactic indication, and shorter distances to ICD implanting centres, had higher SIRs [differences between SIRs of municipalities in highest and lowest quartiles 22 (95% CI 10–34), 45 (95% CI 33–58), and 35 (95% CI 24–47), respectively]. Regional differences in SIRs decreased over time and had become insignificant during 2011–13. Conclusion Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation rates in Denmark varied significantly between regions but variation decreased during 2007–13. Geographical variation was associated with differences in patient comorbidity score, variation in use of primary prophylactic ICD treatment, and distance to ICD implanting centre.

Background: Identification of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who may benefit from prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. We hypothesized that periodic repolarization dynamics (PRD), a marker of repolarization instability associated with sympathetic activity, could be used to identify patients who will benefit from prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of DANISH (Danish ICD Study in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy), in which patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptides) were randomized to ICD implantation or control group. Patients were included in the PRD substudy if they had a 24-hour Holter monitor recording at baseline with technically acceptable ECG signals during the night hours (00:00–06:00). PRD was assessed using wavelet analysis according to previously validated methods. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, NT-proBNP, estimated glomerular filtration rate, LVEF, atrial fibrillation, ventricular pacing, diabetes, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and mean heart rate. We proposed PRD ≥10 deg 2 as an exploratory cut-off value for ICD implantation. Results: A total of 748 of the 1116 patients in DANISH qualified for the PRD substudy. During a mean follow-up period of 5.1±2.0 years, 82 of 385 patients died in the ICD group and 85 of 363 patients died in the control group ( P =0.40). In Cox regression analysis, PRD was independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09–1.50] per SD increase; P =0.003). PRD was significantly associated with mortality in the control group (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.25–1.81]; P <0.001) but not in the ICD group (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.83–1.54]; P =0.71). There was a significant interaction between PRD and the effect of ICD implantation on mortality ( P =0.008), with patients with higher PRD having greater benefit in terms of mortality reduction. ICD implantation was associated with an absolute mortality reduction of 17.5% in the 280 patients with PRD ≥10 deg 2 (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34–0.84]; P =0.006; number needed to treat=6), but not in the 468 patients with PRD <10 deg 2 (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.77–1.78]; P =0.46; P for interaction=0.01). Conclusions: Increased PRD identified patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy in whom prophylactic ICD implantation led to significant mortality reduction.

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.

Depuis le début des années 2000, le défibrillateur automatique implantable (DAI) est prescrit de manière prophylactique aux populations à risque de mort subite. Nombre de ces implantations semblent prématurées, ce qui pose problème en raison des complications post-opératoires encourues. Il apparaît donc important de mieux définir la population à risque de mort subite, afin d'optimiser la sélection des patients.Le pouvoir prédictif de mort subite des différents descripteurs du Holter a fait l'objet de nombreuses études univariées, sans permettre d'amélioration des critères de sélection. Dans ce mémoire, nous présentons l'analyse multivariée des descripteurs du Holter que nous avons menée. Nous avons extrait l'ensemble des descripteurs calculables sur la base étiquetée d'enregistrements de patients, victimes ou non d'arythmies traitées par le DAI, dont nous disposons. À l'aide de connaissances physiologiques sur l'arythmogenèse, nous avons réalisé une sélection des descripteurs les plus pertinents. Puis, par une méthode originale de conception et d'évaluation de classifieur, nous avons construit un classifieur ad hoc, basé, sur les connaissances physiologiques de l'arythmogenèse ; ce classifieur discrimine les patients à risque, des patients pour lesquels l'implantation ne paraît pas opportune.Au vu des performances atteintes, il semble possible d'améliorer la fiabilité des indications d'implantation prophylactique, à l'aide de méthodes d'apprentissage statistique. Pour valider cette conclusion, il paraît néanmoins nécessaire d'appliquer la méthode exposée dans la présente étude à une base de données de plus grande dimension, et de contenu mieux adapté à nos objectifs
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) have been prescribed for prophylaxis since the early 2000?s, for patients at high risk of SCD. Unfortunately, most implantations to date appear unnecessary. This result raises an important issue because of the perioperative and postoperative risks. Thus, it is important to improve the selection of the candidates to ICD implantation in primary prevention. Risk stratification for SCD based on Holter recordings has been extensively performed in the past, without resulting in a significant improvement of the selection of candidates to ICD implantation. The present report describes a nonlinear multivariate analysis of Holter recording indices. We computed all the descriptors available in the Holter recordings present in our database. The latter consisted of labelled Holter recordings of patients equipped with an ICD in primary prevention, a fraction of these patients received at least one appropriate therapy from their ICD during a 6-month follow-up. Based on physiological knowledge on arrhythmogenesis, feature selection was performed, and an innovative procedure of classifier design and evaluation was proposed. The classifier is intended to discriminate patients who are really at risk of sudden death from patients for whom ICD implantation does not seem necessary. In addition, we designed an ad hoc classifier that capitalizes on prior knowledge on arrhythmogenesis. We conclude that improving prophylactic ICD-implantation candidate selection by automatic classification from Holter recording features may be possible. Nevertheless, that statement should be supported by the study of a more extensive and appropriate database