Too old to shock?: Questioning added benefit of ICD in elderly CRT patients

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and the older patient: the Dutch clinical practice

Background and objective

Balance between benefit and burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is more debatable in older patients, compared to younger patients. Of around 6000 yearly implanted ICDs in the Netherlands, 1:4 is received by patients ≥75 years. We aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice in the Netherlands for ICD implants and generator replacements, with a special focus on the older ICD patients.

Research design and methods

Cardiologists from all Dutch ICD implanting centres (n = 28) were interviewed. Questions aimed to evaluate outpatient care, pre-operative patient assessment, end-of-life-care counselling, evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing, clinical evaluation of all patients prior to ICD replacement, and the consideration of the option to downgrade or not replace a device.

Results

Implanting cardiologists from all 28 implanting centres were approached for an interview. Response rate was 86%. Management appeared diverse. An age ≥80 years was consistently reported as incentive for more extensive patient evaluation. Patients were invited for counselling prior to device replacements in only the minority (46%) of hospitals. Downgrade or non-replacement was performed in rare cases. End-of-life care discussions were not standard procedure in 67% of the hospitals. Evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing of patients was based solely on the general clinical impression of the physician in 83%, or not at all assessed in 8% of the centres.

Discussion and implication

A structured framework for care and evaluation of cognitive and/or physical limitations is currently absent in most hospitals. At time of ICD (re-)evaluation, several factors may be considered before deciding on (continuation of) ICD therapy: patient preferences and comorbidity, the need for pacemaker therapy, primary vs. secondary prevention, procedural risks, and patient preferences.

Prognostic value of Charlson Comorbidity Index in the elderly with a cardioverter defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are often underrepresented in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) trials, and ICD implantation in patients ≥75 years consequently remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate mortality, appropriate ICD therapy rates and survival gain in an elderly population after risk stratification according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

METHODS

This monocentric retrospective study included elderly ICD patients ≥75 years. They were subdivided according to their CCI score into 3 categories (0-1, 2-3 or ≥4 points). Elderly patients were matched 1:2 with younger control ICD patients on gender, type of prevention (primary or secondary) and type of device (associated cardiac resynchronization therapy or not).

RESULTS

Between January 2009 and July 2017, 121 elderly patients (mean age 78 ± 3; 83% male) matched with 242 controls (mean age 66 ± 5) were included. At 5 year follow-up after ICD implantation, overall survival was 78%, 57%, and 29% (P = 0.002) in the elderly with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively, and 72% in controls. There was no significant difference regarding ICD appropriate therapy between the 3 subgroups despite a trend towards lower rates of therapy in CCI ≥ 4 points patients (34.2%, 39.7% and 22.8% respectively; P = 0.45). Median potential survival gain after an appropriate therapy was >5, 4.7 and 1.4 years, with a CCI score of 0-1, 2-3 and ≥4 respectively (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients with CCI score ≥ 4 had the lowest survival after ICD implantation and little survival gain in case of appropriate defibrillator therapy. More than age alone, the burden of comorbidities assessed by the CCI could be helpful to better select elderly patients for ICD implantation.