Jorge Romero1, Rahul Chaudhary2, Jalaj Garg3, Florentino Lupercio1, Neeraj Shah4, Rahul Gupta5, Talha Nazir4, Babak Bozorgnia4, Andrea Natale1,6, Luigi Di Biase7,8. 1. Montefiore-Einstein Center for Heart and Vascular Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, 1250 S Cedar Crest Blvd, Allentown, PA, 18103, USA. garg.jalaj@yahoo.com. 4. Division of Cardiology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, 1250 S Cedar Crest Blvd, Allentown, PA, 18103, USA. 5. Queens Cardiac Care, Queens Village, New York, NY, USA. 6. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX, USA. 7. Montefiore-Einstein Center for Heart and Vascular Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. dibbia@gmail.com. 8. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX, USA. dibbia@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A mortality benefit in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in ischemic cardiomyopathy is well established. However, the benefit of ICD implantation in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) on total mortality remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the role of primary prevention ICD in NICM patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from the inception through February 2017 to identify RCT evaluating the role of ICD in NICM patients. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) fixed effects model was used to summarize data across treatment arms. If heterogeneity (I 2) ≥25, random effects model was used instead. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 2573 patients from five RCTs comparing ICD with medical therapy in patients with NICM. The mean follow up for the trials was 48 ± 22 months. There was a significant reduction in (a) all-cause mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, p = 0.03) and (b) sudden cardiac death (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73, p < 0.001) in ICD group versus medical therapy. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that the use of ICD for primary prevention is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and SCD in patients with NICM.
INTRODUCTION: A mortality benefit in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in ischemic cardiomyopathy is well established. However, the benefit of ICD implantation in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) on total mortality remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the role of primary prevention ICD in NICM patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from the inception through February 2017 to identify RCT evaluating the role of ICD in NICM patients. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) fixed effects model was used to summarize data across treatment arms. If heterogeneity (I 2) ≥25, random effects model was used instead. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 2573 patients from five RCTs comparing ICD with medical therapy in patients with NICM. The mean follow up for the trials was 48 ± 22 months. There was a significant reduction in (a) all-cause mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, p = 0.03) and (b) sudden cardiac death (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73, p < 0.001) in ICD group versus medical therapy. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that the use of ICD for primary prevention is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and SCD in patients with NICM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Implantable cardiac defibrillator; Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; Sudden cardiac death
Authors: Barry J Maron; Jeffrey A Towbin; Gaetano Thiene; Charles Antzelevitch; Domenico Corrado; Donna Arnett; Arthur J Moss; Christine E Seidman; James B Young Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David S Frankel; Stavros E Mountantonakis; Melissa R Robinson; Erica S Zado; David J Callans; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2011-05-03
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Lars Køber; Jens J Thune; Jens C Nielsen; Jens Haarbo; Lars Videbæk; Eva Korup; Gunnar Jensen; Per Hildebrandt; Flemming H Steffensen; Niels E Bruun; Hans Eiskjær; Axel Brandes; Anna M Thøgersen; Finn Gustafsson; Kenneth Egstrup; Regitze Videbæk; Christian Hassager; Jesper H Svendsen; Dan E Høfsten; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Steen Pehrson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jorge A Salerno-Uriarte; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Catherine Klersy; Roberto F E Pedretti; Massimo Tritto; Luciano Sallusti; Luigi Libero; Giacinto Pettinati; Giulio Molon; Antonio Curnis; Eraldo Occhetta; Fabrizio Morandi; Paolo Ferrero; Francesco Accardi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: S Adam Strickberger; John D Hummel; Thomas G Bartlett; Howard I Frumin; Claudio D Schuger; Scott L Beau; Cynthia Bitar; Fred Morady Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D A Theuns; T E Verstraelen; A C J van der Lingen; P P Delnoy; C P Allaart; L van Erven; A H Maass; K Vernooy; A A M Wilde; E Boersma; J G Meeder Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 2.854