Philip M Chang1, Brian D Powell2, Paul W Jones3, Nathan Carter3, David L Hayes4, Leslie A Saxon5. 1. Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA. philip.chang@med.usc.edu. 2. Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. 3. Boston Scientific, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 5. Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in young patients have expanded and differ from those in older adults. We sought to provide descriptive characteristics and data regarding ICD therapy and outcomes among younger and older ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Demographics, device type and programming, remotely transmitted data, shock events, and survival were compared among younger (≤30 years) and older (>30 years) cohorts with ICDs from a single manufacturer followed on a remote network. The younger cohort included 904 patients (1.6% of all implants). This group had more females (46% vs. 25%; P < 0.01), single-coil leads (21% vs. 4%; P < 0.01), and single-chamber devices (46% vs. 34%; P < 0.01). Shock incidence was higher (40% younger vs. 32% older at 4 years; P < 0.01) and survival was better over comparable follow-up (88% vs. 72%; P < 0.01). Remote monitoring was associated with improved survival in both groups (93% vs. 86% ≤ 30 years, P < 0.01; 73% vs. 66% > 30 years, P < 0.01). Shock for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) was more frequent in younger patients (12% vs. 5%; P < 0.01); 39% of all shocks were inappropriate. A 10-fold increased risk of mortality was seen among young patients with shocks for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in survival, shock incidence, and prognostic significance of VT/VF and AF/AFL exist between younger and older ICD recipients. These suggest distinct differences in myocardial substrates and diseases that ultimately impact ICD management.
INTRODUCTION: Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in young patients have expanded and differ from those in older adults. We sought to provide descriptive characteristics and data regarding ICD therapy and outcomes among younger and older ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Demographics, device type and programming, remotely transmitted data, shock events, and survival were compared among younger (≤30 years) and older (>30 years) cohorts with ICDs from a single manufacturer followed on a remote network. The younger cohort included 904 patients (1.6% of all implants). This group had more females (46% vs. 25%; P < 0.01), single-coil leads (21% vs. 4%; P < 0.01), and single-chamber devices (46% vs. 34%; P < 0.01). Shock incidence was higher (40% younger vs. 32% older at 4 years; P < 0.01) and survival was better over comparable follow-up (88% vs. 72%; P < 0.01). Remote monitoring was associated with improved survival in both groups (93% vs. 86% ≤ 30 years, P < 0.01; 73% vs. 66% > 30 years, P < 0.01). Shock for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) was more frequent in younger patients (12% vs. 5%; P < 0.01); 39% of all shocks were inappropriate. A 10-fold increased risk of mortality was seen among young patients with shocks for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in survival, shock incidence, and prognostic significance of VT/VF and AF/AFL exist between younger and older ICD recipients. These suggest distinct differences in myocardial substrates and diseases that ultimately impact ICD management.