Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes

QRS-T angle: is it a specific parameter associated with sudden cardiac death in type 2 diabetes? Results from the SURDIAGENE and the Mini-Finland prospective cohorts

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Type 2 diabetes is associated with a high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), but the risk of dying from another cause (non-SCD) is proportionally even higher. The aim of the study was to identify easily available ECG-derived features associated with SCD, while considering the competing risk of dying from non-SCD causes.

METHODS

In the SURDIAGENE (Survie, Diabete de type 2 et Genetique) French prospective cohort of individuals with type 2 diabetes, 15 baseline ECG parameters were interpreted among 1362 participants (mean age 65 years; HbA1c 62±17 mmol/mol [7.8±1.5%]; 58% male). Competing risk models assessed the prognostic value of clinical and ECG parameters for SCD after adjusting for age, sex, history of myocardial infarction, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), HbA1c and eGFR. The prospective Mini-Finland cohort study was used to externally validate our findings.

RESULTS

During median follow-up of 7.4 years, 494 deaths occurred including 94 SCDs. After adjustment, frontal QRS-T angle ≥90° (sub-distribution HR [sHR] 1.68 [95% CI 1.04, 2.69], p=0.032) and NT-proBNP level (sHR 1.26 [95% CI 1.06, 1.50] per 1 log, p=0.009) were significantly associated with a higher risk of SCD. Nevertheless, frontal QRS-T angle was the only marker not to be associated with causes of death other than SCD (sHR 1.08 [95% CI 0.84, 1.39], p=0.553 ). These findings were replicated in the Mini-Finland study subset of participants with diabetes (sHR 2.22 [95% CI 1.05, 4.71], p=0.04 for SCD and no association for other causes of death).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

QRS-T angle was specifically associated with SCD risk and not with other causes of death, opening an avenue for refining SCD risk stratification in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Benefit of primary and secondary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in elderly patients has been questioned. In the present study, we aimed to analyse the outcome of patients of different age groups with ICD implantation.

METHODS

We included all patients who received an ICD in our hospital from 2011 to 2020. Primary endpoints were (1) death from any cause and (2) appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing/shock). A "benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as appropriate ICD therapy before death from any cause/or survival. "No benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as death from any cause without prior appropriate ICD therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 422 patients received an ICD (primary prophylaxis n = 323, secondary prophylaxis n = 99). At the time of implantation, 35 patients (8%) were >80 years and 106 patients were >75 years (25%). During the study period of 4.2 ± 3 years, benefit of ICD occurred in 89 patients (21%) and no benefit in 84 patients (20%). In primary prevention, the proportion of patients who had a benefit from ICD implantation decreased with increasing age, and there were no patients who benefited from ICD therapy in the group of patients >80 years. In secondary prophylaxis, the proportion of patients with a benefit from ICD implantation ranged from 20% to 30% in all age groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the indication of primary prophylactic ICD in elderly and very old patients should be critically assessed. On the other hand, no patient should be denied secondary prophylactic ICD implantation because of age.

Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high-impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital-University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

Usefulness of the MAGGIC Score in Predicting the Competing Risk of Non-Sudden Death in Heart Failure Patients Receiving an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Sub-Analysis of the OBSERVO-ICD Registry

The role of prognostic risk scores in predicting the competing risk of non-sudden death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is unclear. To this goal, we evaluated the accuracy and usefulness of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score. The present analysis included 1089 HFrEF ICD recipients enrolled in the OBSERVO-ICD registry (NCT02735811). During a median follow-up of 36 months (1st-3rd IQR 25-48 months), 193 patients (17.7%) experienced at least one appropriate ICD therapy, and 133 patients died (12.2%) without experiencing any ICD therapy. The frequency of patients receiving ICD therapies was stable around 17-19% across increasing tertiles of 3-year MAGGIC probability of death, whereas non-sudden mortality increased (6.4% to 9.8% to 20.8%, p < 0.0001). Accuracy of MAGGIC score was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.56-0.64) for the overall outcome, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.49-0.57) for ICD therapies and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.60-0.70) for non-sudden death. In patients with higher 3-year MAGGIC probability of death, the increase in the competing risk of non-sudden death during follow-up was greater than that of receiving an appropriate ICD therapy. Results were unaffected when analysis was limited to ICD shocks only. The MAGGIC risk score proved accurate and useful in predicting the competing risk of non-sudden death in HFrEF ICD recipients. Estimation of mortality risk should be taken into greater consideration at the time of ICD implantation.

Diabetes and Risk of Sudden Death in Coronary Artery Disease Patients Without Severe Systolic Dysfunction

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the absolute and relative associations of diabetes mellitus (DM) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with sudden and/or arrhythmic death (SAD) versus other modes of death in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who do not qualify for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND

Patients with CAD and DM are at elevated risk for SAD; however, it is unclear whether these patients would benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators given competing causes of death and/or whether HbA1c might augment SAD risk stratification.

METHODS

In the PRE-DETERMINE study of 5,764 patients with CAD with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of >30% to 35%, competing risk analyses were used to compare the absolute and relative risks of SAD versus non-SAD by DM status and HbA1c level and to identify risk factors for SAD among 1,782 patients with DM.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 6.8 years, DM and HbA1c were significantly associated with SAD and non-SAD (P < 0.05 for all comparisons); however, the cumulative incidence of non-SAD (19.2%; 95% CI: 17.3%-21.2%) was almost 4 times higher than SAD (4.8%; 95% CI: 3.8%-5.9%) in DM patients. A similar pattern of absolute risk was observed across categories of HbA1c. In analyses limited to patients with DM, HbA1c was not associated with SAD, whereas low LVEF, atrial fibrillation, and electrocardiogram measurements were associated with higher SAD risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CAD and LVEF of >30% to 35%, patients with DM and/or elevated HbA1c are at much higher absolute risk of dying from non-SAD than SAD. Clinical risk markers, and not HbA1c, were associated with SAD risk in patients with DM. (PRE-DETERMINE: Biologic Markers and MRI SCD Cohort Study; NCT01114269).

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the EU-CERT-ICD controlled multicentre cohort study

Aims

The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy.

Methods and results

We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902).

Conclusion

In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care: A joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Heart failure in the last year: progress and perspective

Research about heart failure (HF) has made major progress in the last years. We give here an update on the most recent findings. Landmark trials have established new treatments for HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan was superior to enalapril in PARADIGM‐HF trial, and its initiation during hospitalization for acute HF or early after discharge can now be considered. More recently, new therapeutic pathways have been developed. In the DAPA‐HF and EMPEROR‐Reduced trials, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint, compared with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.85; P < 0.001 and HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.65–0.86; P < 0.001, respectively]. Second, vericiguat, an oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization vs. placebo (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82–0.98; P = 0.02). On the other hand, both the diagnosis and treatment of HF with preserved ejection fraction, as well as management of advanced HF and acute HF, remain challenging. A better phenotyping of patients with HF would be helpful for prognostic stratification and treatment selection. Further aspects, such as the use of devices, treatment of arrhythmias, and percutaneous treatment of valvular heart disease in patients with HF, are also discussed and reviewed in this article.

The effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with diabetes and non-ischaemic systolic heart failure

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death, but not all-cause death in patients with non-ischaemic systolic heart failure (HF). Whether co-existence of diabetes affects ICD treatment effects is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the effect of ICD implantation on risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) according to diabetes status at baseline in the Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-ischaemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality (DANISH) trial. Outcomes were analysed by use of cumulative incidence curves and Cox regressions models. Of the 1116 patients enrolled, 211 (19%) had diabetes at baseline. Patients with diabetes were more obese, had worse kidney function and more were in New York Heart Association Class III/IV. The risk of device infections and other complications in the ICD group was similar among patients with and without diabetes (6.1% vs. 4.6% P = 0.54). Irrespective of treatment group, diabetes was associated with higher risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and SCD. The treatment effect of ICD in patients with diabetes vs. patients without diabetes was hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92 (0.57-1.50) vs. HR = 0.85 (0.63-1.13); Pinteraction = 0.60 for all-cause mortality, HR = 0.99 (0.58-1.70) vs. HR = 0.70 (0.48-1.01); Pinteraction = 0.25 for cardiovascular death, and HR = 0.81 (0.35-1.88) vs. HR = 0.40 (0.22-0.76); Pinteraction = 0.16 for sudden cardiac death.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with non-ischaemic systolic HF, diabetes was associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality, primarily driven by cardiovascular mortality including SCD. Treatment effect of ICD therapy was not significantly modified by diabetes which might be due to lack of power.

Non-fatal cardiovascular events preceding sudden cardiac death in patients with an acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure: insights from the high-risk myocardial infarction database

AIMS

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by heart failure [HF; clinical HF or left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction], we explored the probability of subsequent non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events and sudden cardiac death (SCD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The high-risk myocardial infarction (HRMI) database contains 28 771 patients with signs of HF or reduced LV ejection fraction (<40%) after AMI. We evaluated the temporal association between SCD with preceding non-fatal CV event [HF hospitalization, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke]. Median follow-up was 1.9 years. Mean age was 65.0 ± 11.5 years and 70% were male. The incidence of CV death was 7.9 per 100 patient-years and for SCD was 3.1 per patient-years (40% of CV deaths). The incidence of SCD preceded by HF hospitalization was greater than SCD without preceding HF hospitalization (P < 0.05). However, overall, SCD was less likely to be preceded by a non-fatal CV event compared to other causes of death: 9.6% of SCD events were preceded by an MI (vs. 46.6% for non-sudden CV death); 17.0% of SCD events were preceded with an HF hospitalization (vs. 25.4% for non-sudden CV death); and 2.7% of SCD events were preceded by stroke (vs.12.9% for non-sudden CV death).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with AMI complicated by HF, SCD, compared with other causes of death, was less likely to be preceded by a non-fatal CV event. As patients are less likely to have preceding non-fatal CV events to alert the healthcare team of a possible impending SCD event, additional strategies for risk stratification for SCD are needed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Older Heart Failure Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Background

There are conflicting data regarding the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of ICD placement in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Methods and Results

Data were obtained from the Get With the Guidelines–Health Failure registry, linked with claims from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used a Cox proportional hazards model censored at 5 years with propensity score matching. Of the 17 186 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database (6540 with diabetes mellitus; 38%), 1677 (646 with diabetes mellitus; 39%) received an ICD during their index HF hospitalization or were prescribed an ICD at discharge. Patients with diabetes mellitus and an ICD (n=646), as compared with those without an ICD (n=1031), were more likely to be younger (74 versus 78 years of age) and have coronary artery disease (68% versus 60%). After propensity matching, ICD use among patients with diabetes mellitus, as compared with those without an ICD, was associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality at 5 years after HF discharge (54% versus 59%; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64–0.82; P<0.0001). Ischemic heart disease did not modify the association between ICD use and all‐cause mortality (P=0.95 for interaction). Similar results were seen in patients without diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions

Primary prevention ICD use among older patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes mellitus was associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality. Our analysis supports current guideline recommendations for implantation of primary prevention ICDs among older patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Predicting sustained ventricular arrhythmias in dilated cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Aims

Patients with non‐ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Identification of patients that may benefit from implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation remains challenging. In this study, we aimed to determine predictors of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with DCM.

Methods and results

We searched MEDLINE/Embase for studies describing predictors of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with DCM. Quality and bias were assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, articles with high risk of bias in ≥2 areas were excluded. Unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of uniformly defined predictors were pooled, while all other predictors were evaluated in a systematic review. We included 55 studies (11 451 patients and 3.7 ± 2.3 years follow‐up). Crude annual event rate was 4.5%. Younger age [HR 0.82; 95% CI (0.74–1.00)], hypertension [HR 1.95; 95% CI (1.26–3.00)], prior sustained ventricular arrhythmia [HR 4.15; 95% CI (1.32–13.02)], left ventricular ejection fraction on ultrasound [HR 1.45; 95% CI (1.19–1.78)], left ventricular dilatation (HR 1.10), and presence of late gadolinium enhancement [HR 5.55; 95% CI (4.02–7.67)] were associated with arrhythmic outcome in pooled analyses. Prior non‐sustained ventricular arrhythmia and several genotypes [mutations in Phospholamban (PLN), Lamin A/C (LMNA), and Filamin‐C (FLNC)] were associated with arrhythmic outcome in non‐pooled analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate, and heterogeneity among studies was moderate to high.

Conclusions

In patients with DCM, the annual event rate of sustained ventricular arrhythmias is approximately 4.5%. This risk is considerably higher in younger patients with hypertension, prior (non‐)sustained ventricular arrhythmia, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular dilatation, late gadolinium enhancement, and genetic mutations (PLN, LMNA, and FLNC). These results may help determine appropriate candidates for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation.

Appropriate Shocks and Mortality in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes With Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes increases the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). The exact mechanisms leading to sudden death in diabetes are not well known. We compared the incidence of appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with versus without diabetes with a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) included in the retrospective EU-CERT-ICD registry.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 3,535 patients from 12 European EU-CERT-ICD centers with a mean age of 63.7 ± 11.2 years (82% males) at the time of ICD implantation were included in the analysis. A total of 995 patients (28%) had a history of diabetes. All patients had an ICD implanted for primary SCD prevention. End points were appropriate shock and all-cause mortality. Mean follow-up time was 3.2 ± 2.3 years. Diabetes was associated with a lower risk of appropriate shocks (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.62-0.96], P = 0.02). However, patients with diabetes had significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.11-1.53], P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause mortality is higher in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes with primary prophylactic ICDs. Subsequently, patients with diabetes have a lower incidence of appropriate ICD shocks, indicating that the excess mortality might not be caused primarily by ventricular tachyarrhythmias. These findings suggest a limitation of the potential of prophylactic ICD therapy to improve survival in patients with diabetes with impaired left ventricular function.

Highlights in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and poor quality of life. It is an area of active research. This article is aimed to give an update on recent advances in all aspects of this syndrome. Major changes occurred in drug treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated as a substitute to ACEi/ARBs after PARADIGM-HF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87 for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril for the primary endpoint and Wei, Lin and Weissfeld HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89 for recurrent events). Its initiation was then shown as safe and potentially useful in recent studies in patients hospitalized for acute HF. More recently, dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse-outcomes in DAPA-HF trial showed the beneficial effects of the sodium-glucose transporter type 2 inhibitor dapaglifozin vs. placebo, added to optimal standard therapy [HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85;0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85 for the primary endpoint]. Trials with other SGLT 2 inhibitors and in other patients, such as those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with recent decompensation, are ongoing. Multiple studies showed the unfavourable prognostic significance of abnormalities in serum potassium levels. Potassium lowering agents may allow initiation and titration of mineralocorticoid antagonists in a larger proportion of patients. Meta-analyses suggest better outcomes with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency. Drugs effective in HFrEF may be useful also in HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Better diagnosis and phenotype characterization seem warranted in HF with preserved ejection fraction. These and other burning aspects of HF research are summarized and reviewed in this article.

Heart failure and its complications in patients with diabetes: Mounting evidence for a growing burden

Heart failure (HF) is one of the major challenges in the management of diabetes patients. Among subjects with diabetes, up to 20% could have HF. Conversely, diabetes prevalence in HF patients varies greatly from more than 10% up to 50%. When it is present, the risk of mortality and rehospitalization increases substantially. In addition, current evidence points to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation and sudden cardiac death in patients with diabetes. The inter-relation between diabetes cardiomyopathy, left ventricular hypertrophy, coronary artery disease and renal dysfunction indicates complex and intricate pathways. Despite the great value of clinical assessment and echocardiography, there is insufficient data to suggest systematic screening for HF in asymptomatic patients with diabetes. There is little evidence to indicate that improved glycaemic control improves HF outcome in this population. In the case of established HF, the general guidelines apply in diabetes patients. However, recent advances concerning glucose-lowering treatment in patients with cardiovascular disease suggest that the choice of glucose-lowering agent is of crucial interest and should be based on the patient’s phenotype. New drug classes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, seem to be of particular benefit in these patients. In the future, new personalized strategies should aim at not only good control of the glycaemic level but also the reduction and possibly the prevention of HF onset.

Efficacy of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with diabetes and heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Background

The effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes is not fully elucidated.

Methods

We examined the effect of ICD therapy on sudden cardiac death, cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, according to diabetes status at baseline in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). The outcomes were analyzed by use of cumulative incidence curves and Cox regressions models.

Results

Of the 1676 patients randomized to an ICD or placebo, 540 (32%) had diabetes at baseline. Patients with diabetes were slightly older (61 vs 58 years) and were more often in NYHA class III (37% vs 28%). ICD therapy did not reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in HFrEF patients with diabetes (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.52–1.40); even though these patients had a higher risk of sudden cardiac death compared to patients without diabetes (HR = 1.73 95% CI 1.22–2.47). By contrast, ICD therapy did reduce sudden cardiac death in HFrEF patients without diabetes (HR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.15–0.46); P_interaction=0.002. The findings for cardiovascular and all-cause death were similar.

Conclusion

ICD therapy did not reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (or, as a consequence, all-cause death) in HFrEF patients with diabetes. Conversely, an ICD reduced the risk of sudden death in patients without diabetes, irrespective of etiology.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-019-01415-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.