BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction (MI) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov model to investigate the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI (no ICD, ICD at 60 days, 6 months, and 1 year) in patients who meet current guidelines. Estimates of arrhythmic death (baseline risk 6%, range 1-20% per year), nonarrhythmic death, and ICD efficacy were based upon MADIT-II and other contemporary post-MI clinical trials. We used both deterministic and stochastic modeling processes in our analysis. After 10 years follow-up, the baseline probability of survival was higher in those treated with ICD implantation versus not (42% vs 30%, P < 0.001). Survival was highest with ICD implantation at 60 days versus 6 months versus 1 year: 42.4%, 42.3%, and 42.0% (P = 0.0028). ICD implantation at 60 days provided a mean incremental survival of 0.28 months and 0.84 months per patient (compared with implantation at 6 months and 1 year). In sensitivity analyses, patients' competing risk for nonarrhythmic death was the primary determinant of benefit from ICD implantation. Overall, ICD implantation at 60 days resulted in the greatest life expectancy over a wide range of plausible nonarrhythmic and arrhythmic death rates. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of early ICD implantation are modest when compared with delayed implantation at 6 months/1 year. Our results suggest that making sure a patient receives an ICD, when appropriate, may be more important than the timing of the implantation procedure.
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction (MI) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov model to investigate the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI (no ICD, ICD at 60 days, 6 months, and 1 year) in patients who meet current guidelines. Estimates of arrhythmic death (baseline risk 6%, range 1-20% per year), nonarrhythmic death, and ICD efficacy were based upon MADIT-II and other contemporary post-MI clinical trials. We used both deterministic and stochastic modeling processes in our analysis. After 10 years follow-up, the baseline probability of survival was higher in those treated with ICD implantation versus not (42% vs 30%, P < 0.001). Survival was highest with ICD implantation at 60 days versus 6 months versus 1 year: 42.4%, 42.3%, and 42.0% (P = 0.0028). ICD implantation at 60 days provided a mean incremental survival of 0.28 months and 0.84 months per patient (compared with implantation at 6 months and 1 year). In sensitivity analyses, patients' competing risk for nonarrhythmic death was the primary determinant of benefit from ICD implantation. Overall, ICD implantation at 60 days resulted in the greatest life expectancy over a wide range of plausible nonarrhythmic and arrhythmic death rates. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of early ICD implantation are modest when compared with delayed implantation at 6 months/1 year. Our results suggest that making sure a patient receives an ICD, when appropriate, may be more important than the timing of the implantation procedure.
Authors: Johanna Mueller-Leisse; Johanna Brunn; Christos Zormpas; Stephan Hohmann; Henrike Aenne Katrin Hillmann; Jörg Eiringhaus; Johann Bauersachs; Christian Veltmann; David Duncker Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 3.576