Favorable results of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients older than 70 years

Comparison of pharmacological treatment alone vs. treatment combined with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients older than 75 years

Aims

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduces mortality in selected patients. However, its role in patients older than 75 years is not well established.

Methods and results

We performed a retrospective, non‐randomized study using a historical cohort from a single centre. Between January 2008 and July 2014, we assessed patients aged ≥75 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, identifying 385 patients with a Class I or IIa recommendation for ICD implantation. At the decision of the patient or attending cardiologists, 92 patients received an ICD. To avoid potential confounding factors, we used propensity‐score matching. Finally, 126 patients were included (63 with ICD). The mean age was 79.1 ± 3.1 years (86.5% male). As compared with the medical therapy group, the ICD patients had a lower percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (19.0% vs. 38.1%, P < 0.05) and more frequent use of beta‐blockers (BBs) (85.7 vs. 70.0%, P < 0.05). Other treatments were otherwise similar in both groups. There were no differences related to age, aetiology, or other co‐morbidities. During follow‐up (39.2 ± 22.4 months), total mortality was 46.0% and cardiovascular events (death or hospitalization) occurred in 66.7% of the patients. A multivariate analysis revealed that only BB therapy was shown to be an independent protective variable with respect to mortality [hazard ratio 0.4 (0.2–0.7)]. ICD therapy did not reduce overall mortality or the rate of cardiovascular events.

Conclusions

According to our results, the use of ICD, as compared with medical therapy, in patients older than 75 years did not demonstrate any benefit. Well‐designed randomized controlled studies in patients older than 75 years are needed to ascertain the value of ICD therapy.

Electrocardiographic findings, device therapies, and comorbidities in octogenarian implantable defibrillator recipients

BACKGROUND

The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in octogenarians is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVE

To assess baseline electrocardiographic (ECG) findings, arrhythmia episodes, and development of severe nonarrhythmic illness or death in patients aged >or=80 years at ICD implantation, and to compare them with younger patients.

METHODS

Medical records and device interrogations for 199 patients >or=70 years old who underwent ICD implantation were reviewed. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on age at the time of implant: age 70-74 (group 1; 88 patients), age 75-79 (group 2; 67 patients), and age >or=80 (group 3; 44 patients).

RESULTS

ECGs: Octogenarians were more likely to have sinus bradycardia (SB) (P = 0.047) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) (P = 0.043) compared to younger patients. There was no difference among groups in the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation or any degree of AV block. THERAPIES: There was no difference between age groups in any therapy (P = 0.78), appropriate therapy (P = 0.54), or inappropriate therapy (P = 0.21) per patient-year. There was no difference between groups in time-to-first therapy of any type (P = 0.71). NONARRHYTHMIC DEATH/MORBIDITY: There was no difference between groups in time to death or serious illness.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first to evaluate in detail the therapies received by octogenarians after ICD placement. The higher incidence of SB and LBBB might influence the number of pacing sites in octogenarian patients. Very elderly patients have similar rates of arrhythmic episodes and development of severe comorbidities as septuagenarians, and they should not be denied ICD implantation based solely on age.

Preventing tomorrow's sudden cardiac death today: dissemination of effective therapies for sudden cardiac death prevention

Because the burden of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is substantial, it is important to use all guideline-driven therapies to prevent SCD. Among those therapies is the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). When indicated, ICD use is beneficial and cost-effective. Unfortunately, studies suggest that most patients who have indications for this therapy for primary or secondary prevention of SCD are not receiving it. To explore potential reasons for this underuse and to propose potential facilitators for ICD dissemination, the Duke Center for the Prevention of SCD at the Duke Clinical Research Institute (Durham, NC) organized a think tank meeting of experts on this issue. The meeting took place on December 12 and 13, 2007, and it included representatives of clinical cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, general internal medicine, economics, health policy, the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Agency for Health care Research and Quality, and the device and pharmaceutical industry. Although the meeting was funded by industry participants, this article summarizing the presentations and discussions that occurred at the meeting presents the expert opinion of the authors.

Impact of advanced age on survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AIMS

Given the selectivity of clinical trial patients and meager representation of elderly in the major implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) randomized trials (<25%), whether such data apply to elderly patients overall is unclear. The purpose of our study is to understand the influence of age on mortality after ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 502 consecutive patients receiving ICDs from 1993 to 2003 at a single university hospital. The primary predictor was patient age, categorized as <65, 65-75, and >75 years at ICD implantation. The primary outcome was time to death. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Median survival after ICD implantation was 5.3 years among subjects >75 years, less than half that of the youngest group. After adjusting for potential confounders, compared with subjects <65 years of age, patients >75 years [hazard ratio (HR), 4.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-7.9; P < 0.001] and those 65-75 years (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.8; P < 0.001) were at greater risk of death. Increased age was associated with higher total, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality (all P <or= 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Age at ICD implantation is strongly and independently associated with mortality. Age should be considered among potential co-morbidities in anticipating survival of the elderly patient prior to ICD implantation.

Efficacy and Safety of ICD Therapy in a Population of Elderly Patients Treated with Optimal Background Medication

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with structural heart disease and at high risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whether elderly patients benefit from device therapy in a similar way as younger patients is largely unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive ICD recipients with structural heart disease. Patients were divided into two groups, younger than 70 years at time of ICD implantation (group 1) or 70 years or older (group 2). Main outcome measures were time to death from any cause and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death.

RESULTS

Group 1 and 2 patients were comparable with respect to clinical presentation and average follow-up duration. In the elderly patient group, 78% received an ICD for secondary prevention versus 63% in group 1 (p = 0.007). During a mean follow-up period of 26.5 +/- 18.1 months, there was no significant difference in overall mortality among the two groups: 47 patients died, 34 (12.5%) of group 1 versus 13 (12.7%) of group 2. The average time to death was 28.4 +/- 16.7 vs 30.4 +/- 22.1 months after device implantation, respectively (p = ns). There was no difference in time from device implantation to first adequate ICD therapy and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death among the two groups (p = ns). Device associated complications were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly ICD recipients had comparable survival rates and appropriate use of the ICD compared to younger individuals.

Utilization of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in survivors of cardiac arrest in the United States from 1996 to 2001

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed the incidence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest (CA) in the U.S. from 1996 through 2001.

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrest is a class I indication for ICD therapy. The current patterns of ICD utilization in survivors of CA have not been fully examined.

METHODS

We searched a representative sample of all hospital discharges for patients admitted with the primary diagnosis of CA who survived to hospital discharge. Patients with a concomitant diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or previous ICD in situ were excluded.

RESULTS

From 1996 to 2001, 113,262 patients were admitted for CA. Of those, 63,745 (56.3%) did not survive to hospital discharge. Of the remaining 49,517 patients, 30.7% received an ICD before discharge, with a gradual increase in implantation rates from 1996 (23.6%) to 2001 (46.3%). Using logistic regression for the years 2000 and 2001, patients who were discharged without an ICD were older (odds ratio [OR] 0.93 for every 10-year increase in age, p < 0.001), more likely to be African American (OR 0.19, p < 0.001), and more likely to be admitted to a smaller hospital (OR 2.24 for each additional 100 beds, p < 0.001). These predictors were independent of other co-morbid illnesses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although they are increasing, the rates of ICD therapy after CA remain very low. There are gross discrepancies by race. At a time when newer indications for ICD implantation are emerging, efforts should be focused on identifying the causes of this underutilization and discrepancies in survivors of CA.

Feasibility of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Use in Elderly Patients:

This article addresses the feasibility and safety of ICD therapy in patients >80 years of age. Recent trials have expanded the indication for ICD implantation to include an increasing number and variety of patients. The feasibility of ICD implantation in elderly patients has not been adequately studied. A prospectively collected single center ICD database was analyzed to assess the safety and feasibility of ICD implantation in elderly patients. Patients were divided based on age into two groups (group 1: 70-79 years of age, n = 183; group 2: >or=80 years of age, n = 29). The two groups were similar in gender distribution, NYHA class, and indication for implantation. The actuarial survival was not significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (P > 0.05; primary endpoint), with a 1-year survival of 91% and 93% in groups 1 and 2, respectively, (P = NS). The complication rates at the time of ICD implantation were similar in groups 1 and 2 (6.6% and 13.1%, respectively, P = 0.16). Age alone may not be sufficient criteria to exclude ICD implantation. The current consensus guidelines for ICD implantation appear to be generalizable to treating octogenarians who are otherwise medically fit.

Shocks from pacemaker cardioverter defibrillators increase with amiodarone in patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death

The efficacy of amiodarone used in combination with a pacemaker cardioverter defibrillator (PCD) to decrease episodes of ventricular tachycardia and subsequent PCD shocks is not clear. We examined a retrospective registry of 82 patients with PCD implantation to define the efficacy of amiodarone treatment. We compared patients treated with amiodarone (for 24 consecutive months without interruption) versus no amiodarone. In patients treated with amiodarone there was a 3-fold increase (p = 0.02) in PCD shocks; in patients not on beta-blockers, amiodarone resulted in a 6-fold increase (p < 0.05) in PCD shocks. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction >30% on amiodarone and patients <72 years old had increases (p < 0.05) in PCD shocks. In conclusion, patients treated with amiodarone had more PCD shocks than those not treated. These findings are unexpected and merit a prospective study.