Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Observation from the KCHF Registry.
J Cardiol 2020;
77:292-299. [PMID:
33191081 DOI:
10.1016/j.jjcc.2020.10.011]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2020] [Revised: 09/13/2020] [Accepted: 09/28/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
It remains unclear the clinical characteristics and prognosis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on prevention for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in Japanese patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes in a contemporary large-scale Japanese ADHF registry.
METHODS
Among the consecutive 3785 patients hospitalized for ADHF and discharged alive in the Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure registry, we identified 1409 patients with reduced LVEF (ICD: N = 115, non-ICD: N = 1294).
RESULTS
Patients in the ICD group were younger (69.3 ± 12.9/74.2 ± 13.6 years; p < 0.001), more likely to be men (84%/65%), and more often had a history of heart failure hospitalization (70%/36%; p = 0.001), cardiomyopathy as the underlying heart disease (51%/27%; p < 0.001), and previous serious ventricular arrhythmia (57%/3.8%; p < 0.001), and had lower LVEF (25.4±7.4%/29.5±6.9%; p < 0.001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (43.0±19.7/47.8±23.4 mL/min/1.73m2; p = 0.04) than those in the non-ICD group. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary arrhythmic composite endpoint of SCD, arrhythmic death, or resuscitated cardiac arrest trended to be lower in the ICD group than in the non-ICD group (0.0% versus 3.4%, p = 0.053), and the lower adjusted risk of the ICD group relative to the non-ICD group was significant for the primary arrhythmic endpoint (HR 0.10, 95% CI, 0.01-0.53; p = 0.003). However, there were no differences in the cumulative incidences of all-cause death between the ICD and non-ICD groups (17.3% versus 17.5%, p = 0.68), and the adjusted risk of the ICD group relative to the non-ICD group remained insignificant for all-cause death (HR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.52-1.36, p = 0.51).
CONCLUSIONS
This study elucidated the real-world features of ADHF patients between those with ICD and those without. ICD use in patients with ADHF and reduced LVEF as compared with non-ICD use was associated with significant risk reduction for arrhythmic events, but not for mortality.
Collapse