Clinical Outcomes and Mortality in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is indicated for primary prevention in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure despite 3 months of optimal medical therapy. However, studies that support this recommendation are over 20 years old, and they may not reflect modern heart failure patients’ characteristics. Objectives Retrospectively evaluate patients who received an ICD for primary prevention. Methods All-cause and sudden death rates were compared in patients who received ICD between January 1, 2015 and March 1, 2020 and those who did not accept ICD. Variables were analyzed at a 95% confidence interval, and p < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results When comparing mortality rates between patients with and without ICD, 67 of 228 patients (29.4%) in the ICD group and 39 of 150 patients (26%) in the control group died from all causes (p = 0.473). Age, LVEF, BNP value, and hospitalization were found to be independent predictors of all-cause mortality. Patients with BNP above 508.5, LVEF below 24.5%, and age over 68.5 years had a 25-fold increased all-cause mortality. Coronary artery disease was not found to be an independent risk factor. Survival in the control group was statistically significantly better in the first months. Although there was no statistical difference in the long term, survival was numerically better in the ICD arm. This could be attributed to the fact that ICD implantations were performed on patients with worse clinical conditions. The higher survival rate observed in patients with ICD may be due to the fact that they came in for device control and remained in follow-up. Conclusions With advances in the treatment of heart failure, ICD implantation should be performed in selected patients.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20240348i
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Outcomes and Mortality in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention

Oğuzhan Ekrem Turan, Emin Evren Özcan, Ahmet Anıl Başkurt, Reşit Yiğit Yılancıoglu et al.
10 links
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Clinical Outcomes and Mortality in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention

Oğuzhan Ekrem Turan, Emin Evren Özcan, Ahmet Anıl Başkurt, Reşit Yiğit Yılancıoglu, Sema Güneri
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is indicated for primary prevention in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure despite 3 months of optimal medical therapy. However, studies that support this recommendation are over 20 years old, and they may not reflect modern heart failure patients’ characteristics. Objectives Retrospectively evaluate patients who received an ICD for primary prevention. Methods All-cause and sudden death rates were compared in patients who received ICD between January 1, 2015 and March 1, 2020 and those who did not accept ICD. Variables were analyzed at a 95% confidence interval, and p < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results When comparing mortality rates between patients with and without ICD, 67 of 228 patients (29.4%) in the ICD group and 39 of 150 patients (26%) in the control group died from all causes (p = 0.473). Age, LVEF, BNP value, and hospitalization were found to be independent predictors of all-cause mortality. Patients with BNP above 508.5, LVEF below 24.5%, and age over 68.5 years had a 25-fold increased all-cause mortality. Coronary artery disease was not found to be an independent risk factor. Survival in the control group was statistically significantly better in the first months. Although there was no statistical difference in the long term, survival was numerically better in the ICD arm. This could be attributed to the fact that ICD implantations were performed on patients with worse clinical conditions. The higher survival rate observed in patients with ICD may be due to the fact that they came in for device control and remained in follow-up. Conclusions With advances in the treatment of heart failure, ICD implantation should be performed in selected patients.

Arquivos Brasileiros de CardiologiaVol. 122(2)
Dokuz Eylül University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.