Implantable defibrillators improve survival in end-stage renal disease: results from a multi-center registry

Do Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Dialysis?

Chronic kidney disease patients appear to be predisposed to heart rhythm disorders, including atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular arrhythmias, and supraventricular tachycardias, which increase the risk of sudden cardiac death. The pathophysiological factors underlying arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death in patients with end-stage renal disease are unique and include timing and frequency of dialysis and dialysate composition, vulnerable myocardium, and acute proarrhythmic factors triggering asystole. The high incidence of sudden cardiac deaths suggests that this population could benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. The introduction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly decreased the rate of all-cause mortality; however, the benefits of this therapy among patients with chronic kidney disease remain controversial since the studies provide conflicting results. Electrolyte imbalances in haemodialysis patients may result in ineffective shock therapy or the appearance of non-shockable underlying arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. Moreover, the implantation of such devices is associated with a risk of infections and central venous stenosis. Therefore, in the population of patients with heart failure and severe renal impairment, periprocedural risk and life expectancy must be considered when deciding on potential device implantation. Harmonised management of rhythm disorders and renal disease can potentially minimise risks and improve patients' outcomes and prognosis.

Effect of Implanted Defibrillator on Mortality in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

The beneficial role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of ICD on mortality in patients with CKD. A literature search was conducted for studies reporting the effect of ICD on all-cause mortality in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m²). The search was not restricted to time or publication status. The search included the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and EBSCO CINAHL. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. The minimum duration of follow-up required for inclusion was 1 year. The literature search identified 834 studies, of which 14 studies with 70,661 patients were included. Mean follow-up was 39 months (12 to 81 months). For all patients with CKD, ICD was associated with lower all-cause mortality (log hazard ratio [HR] -0.247, standard error [SE] 0.101, p = 0.015). Heterogeneity: degree of freedom = 13 (p <0.01), I² = 97.057; test for overall effect: Z = -2.431 (p = 0.015). When further stratified based on dialysis, patients with CKD without the need for dialysis had significantly lower mortality (log HR -0.211, SE 0.095, p = 0.026), with a similar trend in patients who underwent dialysis (log HR -0.262, SE 0.134, p = 0.051). ICD implantation is associated with a significant mortality benefit in patients with CKD.

Managing Heart Failure in Patients on Dialysis: State-of-the-Art Review

Heart failure (HF) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) frequently coexist; 1 comorbidity worsens the prognosis of the other. HF is responsible for almost half the deaths of patients on dialysis. Despite patients' with ESKD composing an extremely high-risk population, they have been largely excluded from landmark clinical trials of HF, and there is, thus, a paucity of data regarding the management of HF in patients on dialysis, and most of the available evidence is observational. Likewise, in clinical practice, guideline-directed medical therapy for HF is often down-titrated or discontinued in patients with ESKD who are undergoing dialysis; this is due to concerns about safety and tolerability. In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the available evidence for each of the foundational HF therapies in ESKD, review current challenges and barriers to managing patients with HF on dialysis, and outline future directions to optimize the management of HF in these high-risk patients.

Sudden cardiac death in dialysis patients: different causes and management strategies

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) represents a major cause of death in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The precise estimate of its incidence is difficult to establish because studies on the incidence of SCD in ESKD are often combined with those related to sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurring during a haemodialysis (HD) session. The aim of the European Dialysis Working Group of ERA-EDTA was to critically review the current literature examining the causes of extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA in ESKD patients and potential management strategies to reduce the incidence of such events. Extradialysis SCD and intradialysis SCA represent different clinical situations and should be kept distinct. Regarding the problem, numerically less relevant, of patients affected by intradialysis SCA, some modifiable risk factors have been identified, such as a low concentration of potassium and calcium in the dialysate, and some advantages linked to the presence of automated external defibrillators in dialysis units have been documented. The problem of extra-dialysis SCD is more complex. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction associated with SCD is present only in a minority of cases occurring in HD patients. This is the proof that SCD occurring in ESKD has different characteristics compared with SCD occurring in patients with ischaemic heart disease and/or heart failure and not affected by ESKD. Recent evidence suggests that the fatal arrhythmia in this population may be due more frequently to bradyarrhythmias than to tachyarrhythmias. This fact may partly explain why several studies could not demonstrate an advantage of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in preventing SCD in ESKD patients. Electrolyte imbalances, frequently present in HD patients, could explain part of the arrhythmic phenomena, as suggested by the relationship between SCD and timing of the HD session. However, the high incidence of SCD in patients on peritoneal dialysis suggests that other risk factors due to cardiac comorbidities and uraemia per se may contribute to sudden mortality in ESKD patients.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

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.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients with ESRD: Complications, Management, and Literature Review

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death among dialysis pa-tients, accounting for about 40% of all their mortalities. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is culpable for 37.5% of all deaths among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) should be considered in dialysis patients for the primary or secondary preven-tion of SCD. Recent studies on the implementation of ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy do not exclude patients with ESRD; however, individualized decisions should be made in this group of pa-tients. A thorough evaluation of the benefits of ICD implementation in patients with ESRD requires several large-scale mortality studies to compare and follow up patients with ESRD with and without ICDs. In the present study, we sought to determine and clarify the complications associated with ICD implementation and management thereof in patients suffering from ESRD.

Methods:

To assess the complications allied to the implementation of ICDs and their management in patients with ESRD, we reviewed available related articles in the literature.

Results and Conclusions:

ICD implementation in dialysis patients has several complications, which has limited its usage. Based on our literature review, the complications of ICD implementation can be categorized as follows: (1) Related to implantation procedures, hematoma, and pneumothorax; (2) Re-lated to the device/lead such as lead fracture and lead dislodgment; (3) Infection; and (4) Central vein thrombosis. Hence, the management of the complications of ICDs in this specific group of patients is of vital importance.

Systematic Review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome.

AIM

Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

METHODS

Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; P=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; P<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; P<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; P<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; P<0.001).

Systematic review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome.

AIM

Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

METHODS

Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; p=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; p<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; p<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; p<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; p<0.001).

Sudden Cardiac Death Among Hemodialysis Patients

Hemodialysis patients carry a large burden of cardiovascular disease; most onerous is the high risk for sudden cardiac death. Defining sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and understanding its pathogenesis are challenging, but inferences from the existing literature reveal differences between sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients and the general population. Vascular calcifications and left ventricular hypertrophy may play a role in the pathophysiology of sudden cardiac death, whereas traditional cardiovascular risk factors seem to have a more muted effect. Arrhythmic triggers also differ in this group as compared to the general population, with some arising uniquely from the hemodialysis procedure. Combined, these factors may alter the types of terminal arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients, having important implications for prevention strategies. This review highlights current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors for sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients. We then examine strategies for prevention, including the use of specific cardiac medications and device-based therapies such as implantable defibrillators. We also discuss dialysis-specific prevention strategies, including minimizing exposure to low potassium and calcium dialysate concentrations, extending dialysis treatment times or adding sessions to avoid rapid ultrafiltration, and lowering dialysate temperature.

A validated risk model for 1-year mortality after primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine survival for patients with heart failure after an implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in the United States and to develop a simple model that would predict mortality risk.

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have found that patients with heart failure with a 1-year mortality risk near 20% may not benefit from an ICD.

METHODS

We identified patients from the ICD Registry of the National Cardiovascular Disease Registries who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention from 2007 to 2009. Two risk scores for mortality were developed in 2 cohorts: one limited to those with a B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) value and a second for all patients. The scores were obtained from derivation datasets and tested in a validation sets using logistic regression models and classification and regression trees.

RESULTS

In a primary prevention population with BNP available (18,725) the 6 variables most predictive of 1-year mortality were age ≥75, BNP ≥700 pg/mL, chronic lung disease, dialysis, blood urea nitrogen ≥30 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg. Patients with zero risk factors had a 3.3% one-year mortality compared to a 66.7% one-year mortality for those with all 6 risk factors. Those with ≥3 risk factors (24.0% of the population) had a 25.8% one-year mortality. A second score using a larger cohort that did not consider BNP identified similar risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple validated risk score can identify patients at high and low risk for death within a year after ICD placement. A large fraction of those currently implanted with an ICD in the United States have a high 1-year mortality and may not benefit from ICD therapy.

A meta-analysis of mortality in end-stage renal disease patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)

Data on the effectiveness of implantable implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) with respect to reducing mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are lacking. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the mortality of patients with ESRD who have received and not received an ICD. A search was conducted on January 31, 2013 of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Studies were selected for inclusion based on the following criteria. 1) Randomized controlled trial. 2) ESRD patients with heart failure. 3) Device therapy (ICD, CRT-defibrillator [CRT-D]) used to treat heart failure. 4) Primary outcome is survival analysis. 5) Retrospective study if survival analysis was performed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was 2-year survival. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and a χ2-based test of homogeneity was performed. Three studies were included in the analysis. The combined OR for OS was 2.245 (95% CI 1.871 to 2.685, P<0.001), indicating that patients with an ICD had a significantly higher OS than those without an ICD. The combined OR for 2-year survival was 2.312 (95% CI 1.921 to 2.784, P<0.001), indicating that patients with an ICD had a significantly higher 2-year survival rate than those without an ICD. The use of ICD in patients with ESRD is associated with an increase in the OS and the 2-year survival rate.

Mortality in patients on renal replacement therapy and permanent cardiac pacemakers

End stage renal disease is a relatively frequent disease with high mortality due to cardiac causes. Permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation rates are also very common; thus combination of both conditions is not unusual. We hypothesized that patients with chronic kidney disease with a PM would have significantly higher mortality rates compared with end stage renal disease patients without PM. Our objectives were to analyze mortality of patients on renal replacement therapy with PM. 2778 patients were on renal replacement therapy (RRT) and 110 had a PM implanted during the study period. To reduce the confounding effects of covariates, a propensity-matched score was performed. 52 PM patients and 208 non-PM matched patients were compared. 41% of the PM were implanted before entering the RRT program and 59% while on RRT. Mortality was higher in the PM group. Cardiovascular disease and infections were the most frequent causes of death. Propensity analysis showed no differences in long-term mortality between groups. We concluded that in patients on RRT and PM mortality rates are higher. Survival curves did not differ from a RRT propensity-matched group. We concluded that the presence of a PM is not an independent mortality risk factor in RRT patients.

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

AIMS

Prospective randomized clinical trials show that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) can reduce the risk of total mortality in select populations. However, data regarding patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate if ICDs affect total mortality in CKD patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two separate meta-analyses were performed to (i) assess the effect of ICD on all-cause mortality in CKD patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death and (ii) assess the effect of CKD on all-cause mortality in patients who already had an ICD for primary or secondary prevention purposes. Medline and EMBASE were searched from 1966 to 2013. A manual search by cross-referencing was performed. Five observational studies with 17 460 CKD patients considered at high risk of sudden cardiac death were included to evaluate the effect of ICDs on patients with severe CKD. Patients with ICD implants had a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.47-0.91, P < 0.05) compared with a matched control group. Based on 15 observational studies with 5233 patients as part of our second comparison that evaluated the effect of CKD on patients who received an ICD, CKD was associated with higher mortality risk (HR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.91-4.27, P < 0.05) despite an ICD.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis indicates that for patients undergoing ICD implant, CKD is associated with greater risk of dying. However, ICD placement reduces mortality in CKD patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death.

The impact of transvenous cardiac devices on vascular access patency in hemodialysis patients

Creating a vascular access in the presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) in a patient with or approaching end-stage renal disease can be challenging. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of a CIED on the outcomes of vascular access creation in hemodialysis patients and determine their effects on vascular access patency. This is a single-center retrospective review of hemodialysis patients who underwent vascular access creation after CIED placement. Outcomes of vascular access creation and need for endovascular interventions were compared between patients with vascular access created ipsilateral and contralateral to the site of CIED. Comparing patients with arteriovenous (AV) access created ipsilateral to CIED placement (n=19) versus the contralateral side (n=17), the primary failure rate was 78.9% versus 35.3% (p=0.02). For AV accesses that were matured, the median primary patency durations for AV accesses created ipsilateral to the CIED was 11.2 months compared to 7.8 months for AV accesses created contralateral to the CIED (p=1.00). AV accesses created ipsilateral to a CIED have a higher primary failure rate compared with the contralateral arm and should be avoided as much as possible.