Pierre Poupin1, Claire Bouleti2, Bruno Degand3, Marc Paccalin4, François Le Gal5, Marie-Laure Bureau6, Benjamin Alos2, Pierre Roumegou7, Luc Christiaens8, Pierre Ingrand9, Rodrigue Garcia10. 1. CHU Poitiers, Unité Médico-Chirurgicale Pôle Montmorillon, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. 2. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; INSERM CIC 1402, CHU Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. 3. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: BRUNO.DEGAND@chu-poitiers.fr. 4. Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; CHU Poitiers, Service de Gériatrie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: Marc.PACCALIN@chu-poitiers.fr. 5. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: Francois.LE-GAL@chu-poitiers.fr. 6. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: marie-laure.bureau@chu-poitiers.fr. 7. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: pierre.roumegou@chu-poitiers.fr. 8. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; INSERM CIC 1402, CHU Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: Luc-philippe.CHRISTIAENS@chu-poitiers.fr. 9. Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; Epidemiology and Biostatistics, INSERM CIC 1402, CHU Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: pierre.ingrand@univ-poitiers.fr. 10. CHU Poitiers, Service de Cardiologie, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; Univ Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, F-86021 Poitiers, France; INSERM CIC 1402, CHU Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, F-86021 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: rodrigue.garcia@chu-poitiers.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are often underrepresented in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) trials, and ICD implantation in patients ≥75 years consequently remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate mortality, appropriate ICD therapy rates and survival gain in an elderly population after risk stratification according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). METHODS: This monocentric retrospective study included elderly ICD patients ≥75 years. They were subdivided according to their CCI score into 3 categories (0-1, 2-3 or ≥4 points). Elderly patients were matched 1:2 with younger control ICD patients on gender, type of prevention (primary or secondary) and type of device (associated cardiac resynchronization therapy or not). RESULTS: Between January 2009 and July 2017, 121 elderly patients (mean age 78 ± 3; 83% male) matched with 242 controls (mean age 66 ± 5) were included. At 5 year follow-up after ICD implantation, overall survival was 78%, 57%, and 29% (P = 0.002) in the elderly with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively, and 72% in controls. There was no significant difference regarding ICD appropriate therapy between the 3 subgroups despite a trend towards lower rates of therapy in CCI ≥ 4 points patients (34.2%, 39.7% and 22.8% respectively; P = 0.45). Median potential survival gain after an appropriate therapy was >5, 4.7 and 1.4 years, with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with CCI score ≥ 4 had the lowest survival after ICD implantation and little survival gain in case of appropriate defibrillator therapy. More than age alone, the burden of comorbidities assessed by the CCI could be helpful to better select elderly patients for ICD implantation.
BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are often underrepresented in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) trials, and ICD implantation in patients ≥75 years consequently remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate mortality, appropriate ICD therapy rates and survival gain in an elderly population after risk stratification according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). METHODS: This monocentric retrospective study included elderly ICD patients ≥75 years. They were subdivided according to their CCI score into 3 categories (0-1, 2-3 or ≥4 points). Elderly patients were matched 1:2 with younger control ICD patients on gender, type of prevention (primary or secondary) and type of device (associated cardiac resynchronization therapy or not). RESULTS: Between January 2009 and July 2017, 121 elderly patients (mean age 78 ± 3; 83% male) matched with 242 controls (mean age 66 ± 5) were included. At 5 year follow-up after ICD implantation, overall survival was 78%, 57%, and 29% (P = 0.002) in the elderly with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively, and 72% in controls. There was no significant difference regarding ICD appropriate therapy between the 3 subgroups despite a trend towards lower rates of therapy in CCI ≥ 4 points patients (34.2%, 39.7% and 22.8% respectively; P = 0.45). Median potential survival gain after an appropriate therapy was >5, 4.7 and 1.4 years, with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with CCI score ≥ 4 had the lowest survival after ICD implantation and little survival gain in case of appropriate defibrillator therapy. More than age alone, the burden of comorbidities assessed by the CCI could be helpful to better select elderly patients for ICD implantation.