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":1.7000,"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.
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.