BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and reduced left ventricular function; however, the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the benefit of single-lead conservatively programmed ICD therapy varies as a function of time from MI to ICD implantation. METHODS: We compared time to all-cause death and SCD between the ICD and placebo arms in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. Rates of appropriate shocks in the ICD arm were also assessed as a function of time after MI. RESULTS: Among the 712 patients with a history of MI, 274 died (38.5%), and 68 of these deaths were SCD (24.8%). Appropriate shocks were more common with increasing time after MI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per year after MI 1.04 [1.00-1.08]). Despite these differences, there was no evidence of differential mortality benefit with ICD implantation as a function of time after MI: continuous variable adjusted HR 1.00 [0.98,1.03] and shortest versus longest tertile adjusted HR 0.95 [0.66-1.34]. Sensitivity analyses also failed to show differential mortality benefit by quartile or with the use of an 18-month cutoff: <18 versus ≥ 18 months adjusted HR 1.08 [0.77, 1.51]. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that ICD benefit varied with time from MI to implantation/randomization in this primary prevention population. Single-lead ICD benefit is not restricted to patients with a remote MI (>18 months).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and reduced left ventricular function; however, the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the benefit of single-lead conservatively programmed ICD therapy varies as a function of time from MI to ICD implantation. METHODS: We compared time to all-cause death and SCD between the ICD and placebo arms in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. Rates of appropriate shocks in the ICD arm were also assessed as a function of time after MI. RESULTS: Among the 712 patients with a history of MI, 274 died (38.5%), and 68 of these deaths were SCD (24.8%). Appropriate shocks were more common with increasing time after MI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per year after MI 1.04 [1.00-1.08]). Despite these differences, there was no evidence of differential mortality benefit with ICD implantation as a function of time after MI: continuous variable adjusted HR 1.00 [0.98,1.03] and shortest versus longest tertile adjusted HR 0.95 [0.66-1.34]. Sensitivity analyses also failed to show differential mortality benefit by quartile or with the use of an 18-month cutoff: <18 versus ≥ 18 months adjusted HR 1.08 [0.77, 1.51]. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that ICD benefit varied with time from MI to implantation/randomization in this primary prevention population. Single-lead ICD benefit is not restricted to patients with a remote MI (>18 months).
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: Scott D Solomon; Steve Zelenkofske; John J V McMurray; Peter V Finn; Eric Velazquez; George Ertl; Adam Harsanyi; Jean L Rouleau; Aldo Maggioni; Lars Kober; Harvey White; Frans Van de Werf; Karen Pieper; Robert M Califf; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yee Guan Yap; Trinh Duong; Martin Bland; Marek Malik; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Køber; Stuart J Connolly; Bradley Marchant; John Camm Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-05-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jeanne E Poole; George W Johnson; Anne S Hellkamp; Jill Anderson; David J Callans; Merritt H Raitt; Ramakota K Reddy; Francis E Marchlinski; Raymond Yee; Thomas Guarnieri; Mario Talajic; David J Wilber; Daniel P Fishbein; Douglas L Packer; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Gust H Bardy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul L Hess; Amy Laird; Rex Edwards; Gust H Bardy; J Thomas Bigger; Alfred E Buxton; Arthur J Moss; Kerry L Lee; W J Hall; Richard Steinman; Paul Dorian; Al Hallstrom; Riccardo Cappato; Alan H Kadish; Peter J Kudenchuk; Daniel B Mark; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jonathan P Piccini; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Gillian D Sanders Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Zak Loring; Wojciech Zareba; Scott McNitt; David G Strauss; Galen S Wagner; James P Daubert Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2013-06-09 Impact factor: 1.468