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

Ventricular arrhythmias in the context of chronic kidney disease and electrolyte imbalance

Patients with chronic kidney disease face a high risk of sudden cardiac death, particularly in more advanced stages of renal dysfunction. Ventricular arrhythmias are prevalent and contribute to the heightened cardiovascular mortality. This review aims to explore the intricate interplay of disease-specific risk factors, arrhythmic triggers, and electrolyte disorders that amplify susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in this population and influence the efficacy of available treatments.

Cardiac Device Therapy in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: An Update

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are frequently interconnected and their association leads to an exponential increase in the risk of both fatal and non-fatal events. In addition, the burden of arrhythmias in CKD patients is increased. On the other hand, the presence of CKD is an important factor that influences the decision to pursue cardiac device therapy. Data on CKD patients with device therapy are scarce and mostly derives from observational studies and case reports. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with decreased mortality, reduced heart failure symptoms, and improved renal function in early stages of CKD. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are associated with a significant reduction in the mortality of CKD patients only for the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) is preferred in patients who meet the established criteria. The need for cardiac pacing is increased three-fold in dialysis patients. CKD is an independent risk factor for infections associated with cardiac devices.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients with advanced chronic kidney disease

Introduction

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced CKD, remains elusive. Moreover, the benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF who are cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients may be attenuated.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that patients with CKD who are CRT recipients may derive less benefit from the ICD due to the competing risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia.

Methods

The study population included 1,015 patients receiving CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) device for primary prevention of SCD who were enrolled in either (Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial) MADIT-CRT trial or the Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients with Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator (RAID) trial. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the stage of CKD: those with Stage 1 to 3a KD, labeled as (S1-S3a)KD. The second group included patients with Stage 3b to stage 5 kidney disease, labeled as (S3b-S5)KD. The primary endpoint was any ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (Any VT/VF).

Results

The cumulative incidence of Any VT/VF was 23.5% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 12.6% in those with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001) The incidence of Death without Any VT/VF was 6.6% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 21.6% in patients with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001). A Fine and Gray multivariate competing risk regression model showed that Patients with (S3b-S5)KD had a 43% less risk of experiencing Any VT/VF when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD (HR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.33-0.94] p = 0.03. After two years of follow up, there was almost a 5-fold increased risk of Death without Any VT/VF among patients with (S3b-S5)KD when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD [HR = 4.63, 95% CI (2.46-8.72), p for interaction with time = 0.012].

Conclusion

Due to their lower incidence of arrhythmias and higher risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia, the benefit of the ICD may be attenuated in CRT recipients with advanced CKD. Future prospective trials should evaluate whether CRT without a defibrillator may be more appropriate for these patients.

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.

Management of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF) and HF is one of the leading causes of hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired renal function. Currently, there is strong evidence to support the symptomatic and prognostic benefits of β-blockers, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors (RAASis), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in patients with HF and CKD stages 1–3. However, ARNIs, RAASis and MRAs are often suboptimally prescribed for patients with CKD owing to concerns about hyperkalaemia and worsening renal function. There is growing evidence for the use of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and IV iron therapy in the management of HF in patients with CKD. However, few studies have included patients with CKD stages 4–5 and patients receiving dialysis, limiting the assessment of the safety and efficacy of these therapies in advanced CKD. Interdisciplinary input from HF and renal specialists is required to provide integrated care for the growing number of patients with HF and CKD.

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.

[Perioprocedural mortality after ICD implantation]

Hintergrund

Implantierbare Kardioverter-Defibrillatoren (ICD) sind zum Schutz vor plötzlichem Herztod bei Patienten mit primär- oder sekundärprophylaktischer Indikation etabliert. Wie bei allen komplexen operativen Verfahren verbleibt auch bei der ICD-Implantation ein Risiko für Komplikationen bis hin zum Tod. Gegenstand der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, anhand der Datensätze zur obligaten Qualitätssicherung in Nordrhein-Westfalen die prozedurbezogene Mortalität nach ICD-Implantation zu analysieren.

Methoden

Aus den Datensätzen erfolgte eine Analyse der stationären Todesfälle bei allen 18.625 ICD-Implantationen der Jahre 2010 bis 2012.

Ergebnisse

Während des stationären Aufenthalts verstarben 118 Patienten (0,6 %) nach ICD-Implantation. Patienten im Alter über 80 Jahre (7 %) zeigten eine höhere Mortalität (1,9 % vs. 0,5 % bei < 80-jährigen Patienten, p > 0,001), ebenso Frauen (0,95 % vs. 0,54 % bei Männern; p = 0,004) und Patienten mit hoher NYHA(New York Heart Association)-Klasse (0,3 % bei NYHA II, 0,7 % bei NYHA III, 3,4 % bei NYHA IV; p < 0,001 für alle Vergleiche). Das Vorliegen von Diabetes mellitus (23 % des Kollektivs) beeinflusste die perioperative Letalität nicht, während eine dialysepflichtige Niereninsuffizienz eine signifikant erhöhte Mortalität aufwies (p < 0,001 gegenüber Patienten mit Kreatinin ≤ 1,5 mg/dl; p = 0,002 gegenüber nicht dialysepflichtigen Patienten mit Kreatinin > 1,5 mg/dl). Patienten mit sekundärprophylaktischer ICD-Indikation wiesen eine signifikant höhere Mortalität auf (1,2 % vs. 0,4 %; p < 0,001), die sich beim Auftreten von Komplikationen von 0,6 % auf 3,7 % erhöhte (p < 0,001).

Schlussfolgerung

Die operationsbezogene Mortalität bei ICD-Implantation ist bei Patienten über 80 Jahre, hoher NYHA-Klasse, Dialysepflicht, sekundärprophylaktischer Indikation und nach Auftreten von Komplikationen erhöht.