Time to revisit implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation criteria in women

Sex Differences in Outcomes of Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for the Secondary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Background: In patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention, sex differences may exist in clinical outcomes. We sought to investigate sex differences in appropriate ICD therapy, appropriate and inappropriate shock, and all-cause mortality in this patient population. Methods: A total of 257 patients who received an ICD for a secondary prevention indication in the University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG) between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 were retrospectively included in a consecutive manner. Appropriate ICD therapy, comprising shock and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT), was the primary outcome. Results: The patient population included 257 patients, of whom 45 (18%) were women and 212 (82%) were men. The median of the age was 64 (interquartile range (IQR) 53-72) years. During follow-up (median duration 6.2 (IQR 4.8-7.8) years), first appropriate device therapy took place in 10 (22%) patients for women and 85 (40%) patients for men. Female sex was negatively associated with the rate of appropriate ICD therapy, univariably (hazard ratio (HR) 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.93]; p = 0.030) and multivariably (HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.20-0.95]; p = 0.036). Conclusions: Women with secondary prevention ICDs were less likely than men to receive appropriate ICD therapy.

Effectiveness of ICD therapy in real clinical practice. The Olomouc ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

Clinical parameters linked to a low benefit of ICD implantation and increased mortality risks are needed for an individualized assessment of potential benefits and risks of ICD implantation.

METHODS

Analysis of a prospective registry of all patients hospitalized from 2009 to 2019 in a single centre for a first implantation of any type of ICD.

RESULTS

A total of 2,681 patients were included in the registry. Until the end of follow-up (38.4 ± 29.1 months), 682 (25.4%) patients died. The one-year mortality in all patients, the one-year CV mortality, the three-year mortality in all patients, and the three-year CV mortality were 7.8%, 5.7%, 20.6%, and 14.8%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference when the subgroups were compared according to the type of cardiomyopathy. No significant difference was found between primary and secondary prevention and between the types of devices. Male gender, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation were associated with a significantly increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

In an analysis of a long-term follow-up of 2,681 ICD patients, we found no mortality difference between patients with ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and in the device type. A higher mortality risk was found in men, patients older than 75 years, diabetics, and those with atrial fibrillation.