Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure

Lars Køber(Rigshospitalet), Jens Jakob Thune(University of Copenhagen), Jens Cosedis Nielsen(Aarhus University Hospital), Jens Haarbo(University of Copenhagen), Lars Videbæk(Odense University Hospital), Eva Korup(Aalborg University Hospital), Gunnar V.H. Jensen(Zealand University Hospital), Per Hildebrandt(Frederiksberg Hospital), Flemming Hald Steffensen(Lillebaelt Hospital), Niels Eske Bruun(Gentofte Hospital), Hans Eiskjær(Aarhus University Hospital), Axel Brandes(Odense University Hospital), Anna Margrethe Thøgersen(Aalborg University Hospital), Finn Gustafsson(Rigshospitalet), Kenneth Egstrup(Odense University Hospital), R. Videbæk(Rigshospitalet), Christian Hassager(Rigshospitalet), Jesper Hastrup Svendsen(Rigshospitalet), Dan Eik Høfsten(Rigshospitalet), Christian Torp‐Pedersen(Aalborg University Hospital), Steen Pehrson(Rigshospitalet)
New England Journal of Medicine
August 28, 2016
Cited by 1,719Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: After a median follow-up period of 67.6 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 120 patients (21.6%) in the ICD group and in 131 patients (23.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28). Sudden cardiac death occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) in the ICD group and in 46 patients (8.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.82; P=0.005). Device infection occurred in 27 patients (4.9%) in the ICD group and in 20 patients (3.6%) in the control group (P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care. (Funded by Medtronic and others; DANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542945 .).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis