Do implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival in patients with chronic kidney disease at high risk of sudden cardiac death? A meta-analysis of observational studies

Renal dysfunction is a time-varying risk predictor of sudden cardiac death in heart failure

AIMS

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a common mode of death in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is established treatment for SCD prevention, but current eligibility criteria based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class may be due for reconsideration given the increasing effectiveness of pharmacological therapy. We sought to reconsider the risk stratification of SCD in patients with symptomatic CHF.

METHODS

In total, 1,676 consecutive patients (74 ± 13 years old; 56% male) with NYHA class II or III CHF between 2008 and 2015 were enrolled for this prospective study. The endpoint was SCD.

RESULTS

During a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 25 (4-70) months, 198 (11.8%) patients suffered SCD. Of those events, 23% occurred within 3 months of discharge. In the adjusted analyses, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.70, P = 0.01] and LVEF ≤ 35% (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.47-3.66, P < 0.01) were independent risk predictors of SCD. Addition of eGFR to LVEF significantly improved prediction of SCD in the C-index (P = 0.04), and in two metrics, net reclassification improvement (P = 0.01) and integrated discrimination improvement (P = 0.03). The predictive power of eGFR declined time-dependently over 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of eGFR to current eligibility criteria may be useful for risk assessment of SCD, although its predictive power wanes over time. Roughly a quarter of the SCD occurred within 3 months after discharge in patients with CHF.

Arrhythmias in Chronic Kidney Disease

Arrhythmias cause disability and an increased risk of premature death in the general population but far more so in patients with renal failure. The association between the cardiac and renal systems is complex and derives in part from common causality of renal and myocardial injury from conditions including hypertension and diabetes. In many cases, there is a causal relationship, with renal dysfunction promoting arrhythmias and arrhythmias exacerbating renal dysfunction. In this review, the authors expand on the challenges faced by cardiologists in treating common and uncommon arrhythmias in patients with renal failure using pharmacological interventions, ablation and cardiac implantable device therapies. They explore the most important interactions between heart rhythm disorders and renal dysfunction while evaluating the ways in which the coexistence of renal dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmia influences the management of both.

NAG: potential cardiorenal biomarker indicates progression of chronic kidney disease in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients, contrary to KIM-1

Aim: NAG and KIM-1 as markers of tubular damage are suggested as potential biomarkers for the cardiorenal syndrome. Aim of the study was to assess the prognostic capability of NAG and KIM-1 regarding progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Materials & methods: We included 313 patients with an ICD and collected plasma and urine samples. Follow-up was performed after 51 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 25-55). Outcome of interest was continuous CKD progression defined as persistent decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate category accompanied by a ≥25% drop of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results: Average four (IQR: 2-6) follow-up values of serum creatinine per patient were obtained. During follow-up 29 patients (9%) developed a continuous CKD progression. NAG was shown as independent predictor for continuous CKD progression (p = 0.01), opposite to KIM-1 (p = n.s.). Conclusion: NAG was shown as predictor for a progressive and real deterioration of kidney function in patients with ICD.

Selection and outcome of ICD and CRT-D patients - Comparison of 4384 patients from the German Device Registry to randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Registry data adds important information to randomized controlled trials (RCT) on real-life aspects of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients with and without cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D). This analysis of the prospectively conducted German Device Registry aims at comparing mortality rates, comorbidities, complication rates to results from RCT.

METHODS

The German Device registry (DEVICE) prospectively collected data on ICD and CRT-D first implantations from 50 German centres. Demographic data, details on cardiac disease, electrocardiogram (ECG), medication, and data about procedure, complications and hospital stay were stored in electronic case report forms. One year after device implantation patients were contacted for follow-up.

RESULTS

DEVICE included n=4384 first ICD/CRT-D implantations (29.3% CRT-D devices). We found a strong adherence to guidelines with over 90% of patients being on ß-blocker and ACE-inhibitor medication and adequate QRS width in the majority of CRT-D patients. Patients receiving a CRT-D were older (67.6±11.0 years vs. 63.9±13.4 years, p<0.001) and had lower ejection fractions (mean 25% vs. 30%, p<0.001) compared to ICD patients. Dilated cardiomyopathy was the predominant underlying heart disease in CRT-D (53.3%), coronary artery disease in ICD patients (64.7%). Compared to RCT our DEVICE patients had more comorbidities (17.9% chronic kidney disease (CKD)) and higher one-year mortality rates (10.7% ICD group, 12.3% CRT group). In multivariate analysis, CKD patients had an almost 2-fold higher risk of 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite relevant limitations of registry data, DEVICE highlights important differences between RCT and real-world registry data and the impact of comorbidities on mortality of ICD and CRT-D recipients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Management of Heart Failure Patient with CKD

CKD is common in patients with heart failure, associated with high mortality and morbidity, which is even higher in people undergoing long-term dialysis. Despite increasing use of evidence-based drug and device therapy in patients with heart failure in the general population, patients with CKD have not benefitted. This review discusses prevalence and evidence of kidney replacement, device, and drug therapies for heart failure in CKD. Evidence for treatment with β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors in mild-to-moderate CKD has emerged from general population studies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). β-Blockers have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with HFrEF in all stages of CKD, including patients on dialysis. However, studies of HFrEF selected patients with creatinine <2.5 mg/dl for ACE inhibitors, <3.0 mg/dl for angiotensin-receptor blockers, and <2.5 mg/dl for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, excluding patients with severe CKD. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor therapy was successfully used in randomized trials in patients with eGFR as low as 20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 Hence, the benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis inhibitor therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD have been demonstrated, yet such therapy is not used in all suitable patients because of fear of hyperkalemia and worsening kidney function. Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor therapy improved mortality and hospitalization in patients with HFrEF and CKD stages 3 and 4 (eGFR>20 ml/min per 1.73 m2). High-dose and combination diuretic therapy, often necessary, may be complicated with worsening kidney function and electrolyte imbalances, but has been used successfully in patients with CKD stages 3 and 4. Intravenous iron improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and CKD stage 3; and high-dose iron reduced heart failure hospitalizations by 44% in patients on dialysis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced death and hospitalizations in patients with heart failure and CKD stage 3. Peritoneal dialysis in patients with symptomatic fluid overload improved symptoms and prevented hospital admissions. Evidence suggests that combined cardiology-nephrology clinics may help improve management of patients with HFrEF and CKD. A multidisciplinary approach may be necessary for implementation of evidence-based therapy.

Association between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without a defibrillator (CRT(D)) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may reduce the risk of arrhythmia or heart failure-specific mortality and improves the prognosis of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency. Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Pubmed were systematically searched from inception to 29 October 2019. We included studies that report all-cause mortality of patients with renal insufficiency who received CRT(D)/ICD therapy. Twenty-six studies (n = 119,263) were included, exploring the relationship between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency from two aspects: (1) Compared with ICD-only, CRT(D) was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in CKD patients (odds ratios (OR) = 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 0.75). For non-primary prevention (secondary prevention or both), the analysis revealed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the ICD group than in the no-ICD group (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.55). (2) CKD increased all-cause mortality in comparison with control group (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.85 to 2.44), and so did dialysis (OR = 2.53; 95% CI, 2.34 to 2.73). Furthermore, compared with CKD3 (eGFR: 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m² ), CKD4/5 (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m² ) was observed to have a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 2.70; 95% CI, 1.93 to 3.80). This review shows a clear association between CRT(D)/ICD and renal insufficiency in the aspect of all-cause mortality, and may provide a reference for the clinical application of CRT(D)/ICD.

Efficacy of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators for Secondary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with End-stage Renal Disease

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) constitutes a major burden on the health-care system in the United States, with more than 300,000 patients nationwide being treated with renal replacement therapy. Very few studies to date have evaluated the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for secondary prevention in patients with ESRD. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of secondary-prevention ICDs in reducing all-cause mortality in patients on dialysis using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) database. We queried the USRDS for relevant data between 2004 and 2010. Patients with diagnoses of ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), or sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) were included in the study. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were younger than 18 years; had missing age, sex, or race/ethnicity information; had experienced myocardial infarction; or had an ICD in situ at the time of VF, VT, or SCA diagnosis. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the efficacy of secondary-prevention ICDs in reducing all-cause mortality in patients on dialysis. A total of 1,442 patients (3.4%) with ESRD had ICD insertion. Patients who received an ICD were predominantly younger, white males with lower Charlson Comorbidity Index and with fewer cardiovascular events. Survival at two years was 53% among those with an ICD relative to 27% among those without an ICD. In this study, we observed a substantial decrease in mortality in patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention when compared with a cohort of similar patients with a history of VF, VT, or SCA.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Chronic Kidney Disease

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is the treatment of choice for heart failure patients with ejection fraction <35% to prevent sudden cardiac death. Whether this benefit remains among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end stage renal disease (ESRD) is yet to be elucidated. We conducted a systematic review of studies in PubMed that have investigated the use of ICDs among patients with CKD or ESRD. From the 470 studies identified, we selected 42 for the current review. Patients with CKD/ESRD were more likely to get antitachycardia pacing or shocks and had higher cardiac and/or all-cause mortality compared to patients without CKD/ESRD. These associations had an inverse dose-response effect with worse outcomes with decreasing kidney function. In conclusion, use of ICDs in CKD/ESRD is associated with increased antitachycardia pacing/shocks and mortality suggesting that their routine use in this patient population may be associated with more adverse outcomes than benefits.

Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease

The challenge presented by sudden cardiac death in dialysis patients is to better define risk factors and delineate multiple etiologies. Only then can therapy be tailored to the highest risk patients and the incidence of sudden cardiac death be reduced. This article details the many possible etiologies and presents a brief overview of more recent research that may in the future prove of great benefit in improving the mortality of our patients with end-stage renal disease.

Left Ventricular Mechanical Dispersion and Global Longitudinal Strain and Ventricular Arrhythmias in Predialysis and Dialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) and may benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the risk for ICD-related complications is also high in this population. Therefore, there is an unmet need for accurate risk stratification tools to identify patients with CKD at risk for ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), who may benefit from ICD implantation. The aim of this hypothesis-generating study was to investigate the association between left ventricular (LV) mechanical dispersion and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) measured using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and VA and SCD in patients with CKD.

METHODS

Patients with CKD stages 3b to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m² or on dialysis) were included and were divided into two groups according to the occurrence of VA or SCD during follow-up. LV mechanical dispersion, as a measure of the temporal heterogeneity of the LV deformation, was measured as the SD of time to peak longitudinal strain of 17 LV segments. The ability of LV mechanical dispersion, LV ejection fraction, and LV GLS to discriminate patients with VA or SCD during follow-up was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

Of 250 patients (66% men; mean age, 61 ± 14 years), 16 (6%) experienced VA or SCD during a median follow-up duration of 28 months (interquartile range, 16-53 months). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, LV GLS (area under the curve = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89) and LV mechanical dispersion (area under the curve = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82) showed modest discrimination to identify patients at risk for VA or SCD. In contrast, LV ejection fraction showed poor discrimination (area under the curve = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

LV mechanical dispersion along with LV GLS may be an additional valuable risk marker of VA and SCD in predialysis and dialysis patients.

Mortality reduction by post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration: a cause-specific analysis

Background

From an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from four randomized controlled trials comparing haemodialysis (HD) with post-dilution online-haemodiafiltration (ol-HDF), previously it appeared that HDF decreases all-cause mortality by 14% (95% confidence interval 25; 1) and fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) by 23% (39; 3). Significant differences were not found for fatal infections and sudden death. So far, it is unclear, however, whether the reduced mortality risk of HDF is only due to a decrease in CVD events and if so, which CVD in particular is prevented, if compared with HD.

Methods

The IPD base was used for the present study. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for cause-specific mortality overall and in thirds of the convection volume were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression models. Annualized mortality and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated as well.

Results

Besides 554 patients dying from CVD, fatal infections and sudden death, 215 participants died from 'other causes', such as withdrawal from treatment and malignancies. In this group, the mortality risk was comparable between HD and ol-HDF patients, both overall and in thirds of the convection volume. Subdivision of CVD mortality in fatal cardiac, non-cardiac and unclassified CVD showed that ol-HDF was only associated with a lower risk of cardiac casualties [0.64 (0.61; 0.90)]. Annual mortality rates also suggest that the reduction in CVD death is mainly due to a decrease in cardiac fatalities, including both ischaemic heart disease and congestion. Overall, 32 and 75 patients, respectively, need to be treated by high-volume HDF (HV-HDF) to prevent one all-cause and one CVD death, respectively, per year.

Conclusion

The beneficial effect of ol-HDF on all-cause and CVD mortality appears to be mainly due to a reduction in fatal cardiac events, including ischaemic heart disease as well as congestion. In HV-HDF, the NNT to prevent one CVD death is 75 per year.

Do Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Reduce Mortality in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease at All Stages?

The benefits of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with high sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk are uncertain. To clarify the effects of receiving an ICD in CKD patients, we conducted this meta-analysis to identify the effects of ICDs on patients with CKD, including those on dialysis. We searched the Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, and clinical trials for studies published before July 2016. Eleven studies including 20,196 CKD patients were considered for inclusion. The pooled analysis suggested that patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/minute/1.73 m2 would benefit from receiving treatments with ICDs compared with patients without an ICD device (aHR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86). [corrected]. This is the first report of a subgroup analysis on the survival rate of ICD implantation in CKD patients according to an eGFR group. The subgroup analysis indicated a similar protective association of ICDs in stage 3 (aHR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.82) and 5 (aHR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.92) CKD patients [corrected] compared with the control group. However, there was no significant improvement in all-cause mortality in stage 4 CKD patients (aHR = 1.02; 95%CI, 0.75 to 1.37) [corrected]. This is the first meta-analysis reporting that ICD implantation reduces all-cause mortality in stage 3 and 5 [corrected] CKD patients. However, the data do not indicate there is any benefit to ICD implantation in stage 4 [corrected] CKD patients.

Long-term survival of implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients with end-stage renal disease

Background

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) has not been studied in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and left ventricular dysfunction. We sought to identify predictors of long-term survival among ICD recipients with and without ESRD.

Methods

Patients implanted with an ICD at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were retrospectively identified. Clinical and demographic characteristics were collected. Patients were stratified by the presence of ESRD at the time of ICD implant. Mortality data were collected from the Social Security Death Index (SSDI).

Results

A total of 3453 patients received an ICD at our institution in the pre-specified time period, 184 (5.3%) of whom had ESRD. In general, ESRD patients were sicker and had more comorbidities. Kaplan Meier survival curve showed that ESRD patients had worse survival as compared with non-dialysis patients (p<0.001). Following adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, patients with ESRD remained at increased long-term mortality in the Cox model. The one-year mortality in the ESRD patients was 18.1%, as compared with 7.7% in the non-dialysis cohort (p<0.001). The three-year mortality in ESRD patients was 43%, as compared with 21% in the non-dialysis cohort (p<0.001).

Conclusion

ESRD patients are at significantly increased risk of mortality as compared with a non-dialysis cohort. While the majority of these patients survive more than one year post-diagnosis, the three-year mortality is high (43%). Randomized studies addressing the benefits of ICDs in ESRD patients are needed to better define their value for primary prevention of SCD.

Sudden cardiac death in haemodialysis patients: preventative options

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in haemodialysis patients, accounting for 25% of all-cause mortality. There are many potential pathological precipitants as most patients with end-stage renal disease have structurally or functionally abnormal hearts. For example, at initiation of dialysis, 74% of patients have left ventricular hypertrophy. The pathophysiological and metabolic milieu of patients with end-stage renal disease, allied to the regular stresses of dialysis, may provide the trigger to a fatal cardiac event. Prevention of SCD can be seen as a legitimate target to improve survival in this patient group. In the general population, this is most effective by reducing the burden of ischaemic heart disease. However, the aetiology of SCD in haemodialysis patients appears to be different, with myocardial fibrosis, vascular calcification and autonomic dysfunction implicated as possible causes. Thus, the range of therapies is different to the general population. There are potential preventative measures emerging as our understanding of the underlying mechanisms progresses. This article aims to review the evidence for therapies to prevent SCD effective in the general population when applied to dialysis patients, as well as promising new treatments specific to this population group.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with CKD: a propensity-matched mortality analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Benefits of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in prevention of sudden cardiac death among the general population are proven. However, the benefit of ICDs remains unclear in CKD. A propensity-matched analysis was conducted to examine the survival benefits of ICDs placed for primary prevention in those with CKD not on dialysis (eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)).

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The Cleveland Clinic CKD registry was utilized to identify individuals who had an echocardiogram at the institution (between 2001 and October 2011). A propensity score of the likelihood of receiving an ICD was developed with the following variables: demographics, comorbid conditions, use of cardioprotective medications, eGFR, left ventricular ejection fraction, and ventricular arrhythmia. One-to-one greedy matching was used with 0.1 caliper width to match patients with and without an ICD. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine survival of matched patients with and without an ICD.

RESULTS

This study included 1053 ICD patients and 9435 potential controls. Of 1053 ICD patients (60%), 631 were matched to the control group. During a median follow-up of 2.9 years (25th and 75th percentiles, 1.5, 4.7), 578 patients died. After adjusting for covariates, the hazard of mortality among propensity-matched patients was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.82) for the ICD group compared with the non-ICD group. A significant interaction was found between ICDs and eGFR (P=0.04). Presence of an ICD was associated with a lower risk of death among those with eGFRs of 45-59 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77) and 30-44 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.85), but not among those with eGFRs<30 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Transvenous ICDs placed for primary prevention are associated with a survival benefit in those with stage 3 CKD, but not in those with stage 4 CKD.

Sudden cardiac death in CKD patients

The risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is high in chronic kidney disease patients, and it increases with the progression of kidney function deterioration. The most common causes of SDC are the following: ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, tachycardia torsade de pointes, sustained ventricular fibrillation and bradyarrhythmia. Dialysis influences cardiovascular system and results in hemodynamic disturbances as well as electrolyte shifts altering myocardial electrophysiology. Studies suggest that this procedure exerts both detrimental (poor volume control can exacerbate hypertension and left ventricle hypertrophy) and beneficial effects (associated with fluid removal and subsequent decrease in left ventricle stretch). Dialysis-related vulnerability to serious arrhythmias is the result of sudden shifts in fluid status and electrolytes, particularly potassium, which alter the physiological milieu. Also Ca(2+) ions, in which concentration alters during dialysis, are of key importance in the contraction of vascular smooth muscle cells and cardiac myocytes, thus exerting significant effects on hemodynamics. Due to the fact that SCD occurs with similar frequency in peritoneal dialysis and in hemodialysis patients, it seems that end-stage renal disease factors are more important than the specific ones associated with dialysis type. The results of randomized trials suggested that hemodialysis patients may not derive the same benefit of cardiovascular disease therapy including beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as the general population with normal kidney function. Noninvasive tests used to stratify SCD risk in HD patients have poor positive value, and thus, combining tests including HRV, baroreceptor sensitivity and effectiveness index as well as its function indices and heart rate turbulence should be implemented. There are only few large randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing the influence of cardioprotective medications or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in dialysis patients on life quality and survival, and their results are sometimes contradictory. The decision concerning treatment and/or ICD implantation in this group of patients should be made on the basis of careful assessment of individual risk factors. Moreover, due to the high hazard of cardiovascular mortality including SCD in dialysis patients, physicians should concentrate on the early selection of high-risk patients, monitoring them and introduction of preventive measures.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators in end-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death among end-stage kidney disease patients (ESKD) on dialysis, but the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this population is uncertain. We conducted this investigation to compare the mortality of dialysis patients receiving a primary prevention ICD with matched controls.

METHODS

We used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to select dialysis patients who received a primary prevention ICD, and the Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry to select a comparator cohort. We matched ICD recipients and no-ICD patients using propensity score techniques to reduce confounding, and overall survival was compared between groups.

RESULTS

We identified 108 dialysis patients receiving primary prevention ICDs and 195 comparable dialysis patients without ICDs. One year (3-year) mortality was 42.2% (68.8%) in the ICD registry cohort compared with 38.1% (75.7%) in the control cohort. There was no significant survival advantage associated with ICD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.13, log-rank P = 0.29]. After propensity matching, our analysis included 86 ICD patients and 86 matched controls. Comparing the propensity-matched cohorts, 1 year (3 years) mortality was 43.4% (74.0%) in the ICD cohort and 39.7% (76.6%) in the control cohort; there was no significant difference in mortality outcome between groups (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, log-rank P = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a significant association between primary prevention ICDs and reduced mortality among ESKD patients receiving dialysis. Consideration of the potential risks and benefits of ICD implantation in these patients should be undertaken while awaiting the results of definitive clinical trials.

Chronic kidney disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator related complications: 16 years of experience

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation has become an accepted therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, serious comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease (CKD) are influencing the beneficial effects of ICD therapy. In this study, the association between kidney function and the occurrence of ICD related complications was assessed.

METHODS

All patients receiving an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator between 1996 and 2012 were included. Renal function was categorized as: glomerular filtration rate (GFR) >90, GFR 30-90 or GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . Registered complications were pocket hematoma, pneumothorax, lead complications, and device infection.

RESULTS

In 3,147 device recipients, 236 patients (7.5%) suffered from at least 1 complication. Patients with a GFR <30 (n = 110) had a higher event rate for hematoma, pneumothorax, and infection. These patients were older, had a higher incidence of hypertension, diabetes, and a lower body mass index (BMI; P < 0.05). After correcting for these risk factors, hematoma remained independently associated with a GFR <30 mL/min (OR 2.7, CI: 1.05-6.9, P = 0.04). Device infection, pneumothorax, and lead complications were not independently associated with a GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) .

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CKD suffered from more ICD related complications than patients without kidney disease. This was partially associated with kidney dysfunction itself as was the case with the occurrence of hematoma. However, the high burden of risk factors associated with device complications in patients with renal disease played an important role as well.