BACKGROUND:Patients with heart failure who receive animplantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about long-term prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. METHODS: Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P<0.001). An inappropriate ICD shock, as compared with no inappropriate shock, was also associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05; P=0.002). For patients who survived longer than 24 hours after an appropriate ICD shock, the risk of death remained elevated (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.04 to 4.37; P<0.001). The most common cause of death among patients who received any ICD shock was progressive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure in whom anICD is implanted for primary prevention, those who receive shocks for any arrhythmia have a substantially higher risk of death than similar patients who do not receive such shocks. 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients with heart failure who receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about long-term prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. METHODS: Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P<0.001). An inappropriate ICD shock, as compared with no inappropriate shock, was also associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05; P=0.002). For patients who survived longer than 24 hours after an appropriate ICD shock, the risk of death remained elevated (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.04 to 4.37; P<0.001). The most common cause of death among patients who received any ICD shock was progressive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure in whom an ICD is implanted for primary prevention, those who receive shocks for any arrhythmia have a substantially higher risk of death than similar patients who do not receive such shocks. 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karl Swedberg; Lars G Olsson; Andrew Charlesworth; John Cleland; Peter Hanrath; Michel Komajda; Marco Metra; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Philip Poole-Wilson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-03-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ilan Goldenberg; Arthur J Moss; W Jackson Hall; Scott McNitt; Wojciech Zareba; Mark L Andrews; David S Cannom Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lars G Olsson; Karl Swedberg; Anique Ducharme; Christopher B Granger; Eric L Michelson; John J V McMurray; Margareta Puu; Salim Yusuf; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-04-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Henry Greenberg; Robert B Case; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Mary W Brown; James P Daubert; Scott McNitt; Mark L Andrews; Adam D Elkin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba; David S Cannom; Scott McNitt; Spencer Z Rosero; Paul Wang; Claudio Schuger; Jonathan S Steinberg; Steven L Higgins; David J Wilber; Helmut Klein; Mark L Andrews; W Jackson Hall; Arthur J Moss Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bryan C Wallace; Larry A Allen; Christopher E Knoepke; Russell E Glasgow; Carmen L Lewis; Diane L Fairclough; Laura J Helmkamp; Monica D Fitzgerald; Wendy S Tzou; Daniel B Kramer; Paul D Varosy; Sanjaya K Gupta; John M Mandrola; Scott C Brancato; Pamela N Peterson; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Selcuk Adabag; Kristen K Patton; Alfred E Buxton; Thomas S Rector; Kristine E Ensrud; Kairav Vakil; Wayne C Levy; Jeanne E Poole Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676