Fankun Ma, Yang Gao, Haibo Yu, Guoqing Xu, Min Wu, Xinrui Hao, Yangfan Cui, Xiao Peng, Yanchun Liang
{"title":"Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Nonischemic Versus Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Real-World Primary Prevention Study.","authors":"Fankun Ma, Yang Gao, Haibo Yu, Guoqing Xu, Min Wu, Xinrui Hao, Yangfan Cui, Xiao Peng, Yanchun Liang","doi":"10.1111/pace.15142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evidence in the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by using implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is well-established but remains controversial for those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). This study evaluates whether prognostic differences exist between ICM and NICM patients after ICD implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients initially undergoing ICD implantation as primary SCD prevention were retrospectively enrolled from January 2017 to May 2023. Malignant ventricular arrhythmic and/or SCD were set as the primary endpoint, whereas all-cause mortality was the secondary endpoint. Patients were grouped by heart failure etiology (ICM vs. NICM) and then by primary endpoint events occurrence. Outcomes analyses were performed between the NICM and ICM patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final cohort had 342 patients, 213 (62.3%) with NICM and 129 (37.7%) with ICM. At a median follow-up of 23.0 (10.7, 33.2) months, 51 patients (14.9%) encountered primary endpoint events. No statistically significant disparities in primary endpoint events (log rank p = 0.413), all-cause death (log rank p = 0.208), cardiovascular mortality (log rank p = 0.218), or appropriate ICD therapy (log rank p = 0.250) between the two groups were indicated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Moreover, the COX-adjusted models further demonstrated the absence of any significant differences between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In real-world settings, primary prevention of SCD with ICD implantation yields similar outcomes for ICM and NICM patients, including probabilities of SCD and/or malignant ventricular arrhythmias, all-cause mortality, appropriate ICD therapy, and cardiovascular mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":"169-179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15142","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The evidence in the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by using implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is well-established but remains controversial for those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). This study evaluates whether prognostic differences exist between ICM and NICM patients after ICD implantation.
Methods: Patients initially undergoing ICD implantation as primary SCD prevention were retrospectively enrolled from January 2017 to May 2023. Malignant ventricular arrhythmic and/or SCD were set as the primary endpoint, whereas all-cause mortality was the secondary endpoint. Patients were grouped by heart failure etiology (ICM vs. NICM) and then by primary endpoint events occurrence. Outcomes analyses were performed between the NICM and ICM patients.
Results: The final cohort had 342 patients, 213 (62.3%) with NICM and 129 (37.7%) with ICM. At a median follow-up of 23.0 (10.7, 33.2) months, 51 patients (14.9%) encountered primary endpoint events. No statistically significant disparities in primary endpoint events (log rank p = 0.413), all-cause death (log rank p = 0.208), cardiovascular mortality (log rank p = 0.218), or appropriate ICD therapy (log rank p = 0.250) between the two groups were indicated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Moreover, the COX-adjusted models further demonstrated the absence of any significant differences between the two groups.
Conclusion: In real-world settings, primary prevention of SCD with ICD implantation yields similar outcomes for ICM and NICM patients, including probabilities of SCD and/or malignant ventricular arrhythmias, all-cause mortality, appropriate ICD therapy, and cardiovascular mortality.
背景:在缺血性心肌病(ICM)患者中使用植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)一级预防心源性猝死(SCD)的证据已经确立,但对于非缺血性心肌病(NICM)患者仍存在争议。本研究评估ICD植入后ICM和NICM患者预后是否存在差异。方法:回顾性纳入2017年1月至2023年5月期间首次接受ICD植入作为原发性SCD预防的患者。恶性室性心律失常和/或SCD被设定为主要终点,而全因死亡率是次要终点。患者按心力衰竭病因(ICM vs. NICM)分组,然后按主要终点事件发生情况分组。对NICM和ICM患者进行结果分析。结果:最终队列有342例患者,其中213例(62.3%)为NICM, 129例(37.7%)为ICM。在23.0(10.7,33.2)个月的中位随访中,51名患者(14.9%)遇到主要终点事件。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示两组在主要终点事件(log rank p = 0.413)、全因死亡(log rank p = 0.208)、心血管死亡率(log rank p = 0.218)或适当的ICD治疗(log rank p = 0.250)方面无统计学显著差异。此外,cox校正模型进一步证明两组之间没有任何显著差异。结论:在现实环境中,ICD植入的初级预防SCD对ICM和NICM患者产生相似的结果,包括SCD和/或恶性室性心律失常的概率、全因死亡率、适当的ICD治疗和心血管死亡率。
期刊介绍:
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) is the foremost peer-reviewed journal in the field of pacing and implantable cardioversion defibrillation, publishing over 50% of all English language articles in its field, featuring original, review, and didactic papers, and case reports related to daily practice. Articles also include editorials, book reviews, Musings on humane topics relevant to medical practice, electrophysiology (EP) rounds, device rounds, and information concerning the quality of devices used in the practice of the specialty.