D A Theuns1, T E Verstraelen2, A C J van der Lingen3, P P Delnoy4, C P Allaart3, L van Erven5, A H Maass6, K Vernooy7,8, A A M Wilde2, E Boersma9, J G Meeder10. 1. Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. d.theuns@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Amsterdam UMC, AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Isala klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 5. LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. UMCG, Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands. 8. Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 10. VieCuri, Venlo, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP) remains controversial. This study sought to assess the benefit of ICD therapy with or without cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in patients with NICMP. In addition, data were compared with real-world clinical data to perform a risk/benefit analysis. METHODS: Relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published in meta-analyses since DANISH, and in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from 2016 to 2020 were identified. The benefit of ICD therapy stratified by CRT use was assessed using random effects meta-analysis techniques. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Among patients without CRT, ICD use was associated with a 24% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.93; P = 0.008). In contrast, among patients with CRT, a CRT-defibrillator was not associated with reduced mortality (HR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.47-1.16; P = 0.19). For ICD therapy without CRT, absolute risk reduction at 3‑years follow-up was 3.7% yielding a number needed to treat of 27. CONCLUSION: ICD use significantly improved survival among patients with NICMP who are not eligible for CRT. Considering CRT, the addition of defibrillator therapy was not significantly associated with mortality benefit compared with CRT pacemaker.
BACKGROUND: Primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP) remains controversial. This study sought to assess the benefit of ICD therapy with or without cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in patients with NICMP. In addition, data were compared with real-world clinical data to perform a risk/benefit analysis. METHODS: Relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published in meta-analyses since DANISH, and in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from 2016 to 2020 were identified. The benefit of ICD therapy stratified by CRT use was assessed using random effects meta-analysis techniques. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Among patients without CRT, ICD use was associated with a 24% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.93; P = 0.008). In contrast, among patients with CRT, a CRT-defibrillator was not associated with reduced mortality (HR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.47-1.16; P = 0.19). For ICD therapy without CRT, absolute risk reduction at 3‑years follow-up was 3.7% yielding a number needed to treat of 27. CONCLUSION: ICD use significantly improved survival among patients with NICMP who are not eligible for CRT. Considering CRT, the addition of defibrillator therapy was not significantly associated with mortality benefit compared with CRT pacemaker.
Authors: Silvia G Priori; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Andrea Mazzanti; Nico Blom; Martin Borggrefe; John Camm; Perry Mark Elliott; Donna Fitzsimons; Robert Hatala; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof; Keld Kjeldsen; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Antonio Hernandez-Madrid; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Tone M Norekvål; Christian Spaulding; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen Journal: Europace Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 5.214
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: Sana M Al-Khatib; William G Stevenson; Michael J Ackerman; William J Bryant; David J Callans; Anne B Curtis; Barbara J Deal; Timm Dickfeld; Michael E Field; Gregg C Fonarow; Anne M Gillis; Christopher B Granger; Stephen C Hammill; Mark A Hlatky; José A Joglar; G Neal Kay; Daniel D Matlock; Robert J Myerburg; Richard L Page Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; Gregg C Fonarow; Jose A Joglar; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Alan Kadish; Gust Bardy; Gillian D Sanders Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
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: Amr F Barakat; Marwan Saad; Akram Y Elgendy; Amgad Mentias; Ahmed Abuzaid; Ahmed N Mahmoud; Islam Y Elgendy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.692