Format

Send to

Choose Destination
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1221-30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1608029. Epub 2016 Aug 27.

Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure.

Author information

1
From the Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet (L.K., J.J.T., F.G., R.V., C.H., J.H.S., D.E.H., S.P.), and the Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg Hospital (J.J.T.), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; the Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus (J.C.N., H.E.); the Department of Cardiology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup (J.H., N.E.B.); the Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense (L.V., A.B.); the Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital (E.K., A.M.T., C.T.-P.), and the Clinical Institute, Aalborg University (N.E.B.), Aalborg; the Department of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde (G.J.); Frederiksberg Heart Clinic, Frederiksberg (P.H.); the Department of Cardiology, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle (F.H.S.); and the Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg (K.E.) - all in Denmark.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS:

In a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death.

RESULTS:

After a median follow-up period of 67.6 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 120 patients (21.6%) in the ICD group and in 131 patients (23.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28). Sudden cardiac death occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) in the ICD group and in 46 patients (8.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.82; P=0.005). Device infection occurred in 27 patients (4.9%) in the ICD group and in 20 patients (3.6%) in the control group (P=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this trial, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care. (Funded by Medtronic and others; DANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542945 .).

PMID:
27571011
DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoa1608029
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center