Analyses of inappropriate shocks in a Spanish ICD primary prevention population: Predictors and prognoses

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: A Townsville District Perspective

Background: Despite major advances in treating patients with severe heart failure, deciding who should receive an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) remains challenging.

Objective: To study the risk factors and mortality in patients after receiving an ICD (January 2008–December 2015) in a regional hospital in Australia.

Methods: Eighty-two primary prevention patients received an ICD for ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 41) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM, n = 40) with 4.8-yrs follow-up. One patient had mixed ICM/NICM indications. Ventricular arrhythmias were assessed using intracardiac electrograms. Statistical analysis compared the total population and ICM and NICM groups using Kaplan-Meier for survival, Cox regression for mortality predictors, and binary logistic regression for predictors of ventricular arrhythmias (p < 0.05).

Results: Major risk factors were hypercholesterolemia (70.7%), hypertension (47.6%), and obesity (41.5%). Severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was found exclusively in NICM patients (23.7%, p = 0.001). Mortality was 30.5% after 4.8-yrs. The majority of patients (n=67) had no sustained ventricular arrhythmias yet 28% received therapy (n = 23), 18.51% were appropriate (n = 15), and 13.9% inappropriate (n = 11). Patients receiving ≥2 incidences of inappropriate shocks were 18-times more likely to die (p = 0.013). Three sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) (3.7%) were prevented by the ICD.

Conclusion: Patients implanted with an ICD in Townsville had 30.5% all-cause mortality after 4.8-yrs. Only 28% of patients received ICD therapy and 13.9% were inappropriate. OSA may have contributed to the fourfold increase in inappropriate therapy in NICM patients. Our study raises important efficacy, ethical and healthcare cost questions about who should receive an ICD, and possible regional and urban center disparities.

Long-Term Survival After Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Therapy According to Sex: A Propensity Matched Study

Background: Whether the sex factor influences the benefit of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for the prevention of sudden death remains a subject of debate. Using a prospective registry, we sought to analyze the survival and time to first ICD therapy according to sex. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing an ICD implant from 2008 to 2019. Data about time to first appropriate therapy, type of therapy administered, and incidence and causes of mortality were collected. Results: Among 756 ICD patients, 150 (19.8%) were women. Women were younger (51 ± 15 years vs. 61 ± 14 years; p < 0.001) and showed a lower rate of ischemic cardiomyopathy (23% vs. 54%; p < 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (12% vs. 19%; p = 0.05). Women had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (39% ± 17% vs. 35% ± 13%) and showed more frequently left bundle branch block (39% vs. 28%, p = 0.027). The rate of primary prevention (68% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.058) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (27% vs. 19%, p = 0.02) were higher in women. After a median follow-up of 46 months (3382 patient-years), the incidence of both the primary combined endpoint of mortality/transplant (20% vs. 29%; logrank = 0.031) and ICD therapies (27% vs. 34%; p = 0.138) were lower in women. According to the propensity score-matching analysis, no differences were observed between both sexes with respect to the incidence of mortality/transplant (24.8% vs. 28.6%; logrank = 0.88), ICD therapies (28% vs. 27%; logrank = 0.17), and main cause of death (heart failure [HF]). Conclusions: The clinical characteristics at the moment of ICD implant are different between sexes. After adjusting them, both sexes equally benefit from the ICD. HF is the main cause of mortality both in men and women.

Determinants of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks: the German Device Registry perspective

BACKGROUND

In the present study, we have focused upon rates and clinical determinants of inappropriate shock (IS) after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively in the German Device II Registry.

RESULTS

A total of 783 patients were included. Three sub-groups were identified: non-shock (NS) included 725 patients (92.6%), IS 24 (3.1%), and appropriate shock (AS) 34 (4.3%). IS patients were younger (AS 68 (58-77); IS 59 (51-68); NS 66 (56-75) years; p = 0.03), had been mainly referred for primary prophylaxis (AS 42.4%; IS 70.8%; NS 67.3%; p = 0.01), had a higher resting heart rate (AS 70 (63-80); IS 80 (71-98); NS 70 (60-81) BPM; p = 0.003), had more often atrial fibrillation (AF) (AS 14.7%; IS 45.8%; NS 18.8%; p = 0.006), and shorter QRS duration (AS 100 (90-120); IS 95 (90-100); NS 120 (98-150) msec.; p = 0.001). VVI-ICD was more common in IS (AS 64.7%; IS 83.3%; NS 49.8%; p = 0.002). At a follow-up of 18.2 months (75% IQR 13.6-22.4), no deaths were observed in the IS group, one (2.9%) in the AS, and 36 (4.9%) in the NS (p = 0.9). At logistic regression, VVI-ICD implantation was the strongest IS independent determinant (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.6-15.9; p = 0.004) together with age < 70 years (OR 4.6; CI 1.4-14.7; p = 0.009), AF at time of ICD implantation (OR 3.5; CI 1.3-9.1; p = 0.01), and resting heart rate > 70/min (OR 2.8; CI 1.0-7.3; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary setting, some specific conditions such as VVI-ICD, younger age, and faster resting heart rates remain important IS determinants after ICD implantation.

Causes and Prevention of Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks

Use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators as a primary prevention therapy has been shown to reduce mortality in patients after cardiac arrest and also with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Yet, inappropriate shocks are variably reported and associated with a reduction in quality of life. Inappropriate shocks are the result of environmental causes leading to electromagnetic interference and inappropriate sensing of external noise, device-related causes from inappropriate sensing of physiologic or pathologic signals, and supraventricular arrhythmias. Strategies to reduce inappropriate shocks include aggressive treatment of supraventricular tachycardia, changes in device programming including prolonged detection time, programming antitachycardic pacing and using discriminator algorithms, and cardiac rehabilitation.

Predictors of mortality and ICD shock therapy in primary prophylactic ICD patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients.

Purpose

To evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all- cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies.

Data source

PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016.

Study selection

Studies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported.

Data extraction

All abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail.

Data synthesis

Our search strategy retrieved 608 abstracts. After exclusion of unsuitable studies, 36 papers with a total patient number of 47282 were included in our analysis. All-cause mortality was significantly associated with increasing age (HR 1.41, CI 1.29–1.53), left ventricular function (LVEF; HR 1.21, CI 1.14–1.29), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; HR 1.37, CI 1.14–1.66) and co-morbidities such as impaired renal function (HR 2.30, CI 1.97–2.69). Although, younger age (HR 0.96, CI 0.85–1.09), impaired LVEF (HR 1.26, CI 0.89–1.78) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 2.22, CI 0.83–5.93) were associated with a higher risk of appropriate shocks, none of these factors reached statistical significance.

Limitations

Individual patient data were not available for most studies.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis of contemporary clinical studies, all-cause mortality is predicted by a variety of clinical characteristics including LVEF. On the other hand, the risk of appropriate shocks might be associated with impaired LVEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective studies are required to verify risk factors for appropriate shocks other than LVEF to help select appropriate patients for primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.