Older Persons with Diabetes Receive Fewer Inappropriate ICD Shocks: Results from the INTRINSIC RV Trial

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in diabetics: efficacy and safety in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for arrhythmogenesis and is associated with a two-fold increase in all-cause mortality and a four-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality including sudden cardiac death when compared with nondiabetics. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) have been shown to effectively reduce arrhythmic death and all-cause mortality in patients with severe myocardial dysfunction. With a high competing risk of nonarrhythmic cardiac and noncardiac death, survival benefit of ICD in patients with diabetes mellitus could be reduced, but the subanalysis of diabetic patients in randomized clinical trials provides reassurance regarding a similar beneficial survival effect of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy in diabetics, as observed in the overall population with advanced heart disease. In this article, the authors highlight some of the clinical issues related to diabetes, summarize the data on the efficacy of ICD in diabetics when compared with nondiabetics and discuss concerns related to ICD implantation in patients with diabetes.

Does change in device detected frequency of non-sustained or diverted episodes serve as a marker for inappropriate shock therapy? Analyses from the INTRINSIC RV and ALTITUDE-REDUCES Trials

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) treat ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation but may also deliver unnecessary shocks. We sought to determine if the frequency of ICD-detected non-sustained or diverted (NSD) episodes increases before appropriate or inappropriate ICD shocks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated NSD episodes in the INTRINSIC RV Trial and their relationship to ICD shocks (appropriate and inappropriate). Time from NSD to shock was analysed. Results were validated by utilizing 1495 adjudicated ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator shocks following NSD episodes collected through the LATITUDE remote monitoring system as part of the ALTITUDE-REDUCES Study. In INTRINSIC RV, 185 participants received 373 shocks; 148 had at least 1 NSD episode. Non-sustained or diverted frequency increased 24 h before the first shock for those receiving an inappropriate (P < 0.01) but not an appropriate shock (P = 0.17). Patients with NSD episodes within 24 h of a shock were significantly more likely to receive inappropriate therapy [odds ratio (OR) = 3.12, P < 0.01]. At the receiver operator curve determined optimal cutoff, an NSD episode within 14 min before shock strongly predicted inappropriate therapy (sensitivity 48%, specificity 91%; OR = 8.8, and P < 0.001). The 14 min cut-off evaluated on an independent dataset of 1495 shock episodes preceded by an NSD in the ALTITUDE-REDUCES Study confirmed these results (sensitivity = 47%, specificity = 85%, OR = 5.0, and P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Device-detected NSD episodes increase before inappropriate but not appropriate shocks. Novel alerts or automated algorithms based on NSD episodes may reduce inappropriate shocks.

Influence of diabetes mellitus on inappropriate and appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy and mortality in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT) Trial

BACKGROUND

The relationship between diabetes mellitus and risk of inappropriate or appropriate therapy in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and resynchronization therapy has not been investigated thoroughly. The effect of innovative ICD programming on therapy delivery in these patients is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT) randomized patients with a primary prophylactic ICD indication to 3 different types of ICD programming: conventional programming with a ventricular tachycardia zone of 170 to 199 bpm (arm A), high-rate cutoff with a ventricular tachycardia zone ≥200 bpm (arm B), or 60-second-delayed therapy (arm C). The end points of inappropriate therapy, appropriate therapy, and death were assessed among 485 patients with and 998 without diabetes mellitus. Innovative ICD programming reduced the risk of inappropriate therapy regardless of diabetes mellitus, although a trend toward a more pronounced effect of high-rate cutoff programming was seen in patients without diabetes mellitus (P for interaction=0.06). Diabetes mellitus was associated with a decreased risk of inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.80; P=0.002) and increased risk of appropriate therapy (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.14; P=0.003). In diabetic patients, there was significantly increased risk of death in those who had inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio, 4.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-11.40; P=0.005) and appropriate therapy (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-5.87; P=0.037) compared with those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative high-rate cutoff or delayed ICD programming was associated with a reduction in inappropriate therapy in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus was associated with lower risk of inappropriate therapy but higher risk of appropriate therapy. Appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy was associated with increased mortality in diabetic patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT00947310.