loading page

Comparison of the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in ischemic versus nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy
  • +6
  • Kun Wang,
  • Xinyue Xu,
  • Yu Qi,
  • Yihai Liu,
  • Lina Kang,
  • Xiaohong Li,
  • Rongfang Lan,
  • Lian Wang,
  • Wei Xu
Kun Wang
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Xinyue Xu
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Yu Qi
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Yihai Liu
Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Lina Kang
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Xiaohong Li
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Rongfang Lan
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Lian Wang
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile
Wei Xu
Nanjing University Medical School Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Introduction: Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) share common structural alterations with a high mortality from sudden cardiac death (SCD) and pump failure. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has, since inclusion in international guidelines, been confirmed beneficial and cost-effective for primary prevention of SCD in patients with ICM, while huge debates in non-ischemic heart disease. This study was to compare the primary prophylactic value of ICD therapy in patients with ICM or DCM to identify a subgroup with greater advantage specially. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study, which enrolled 82 patients with ICM or DCM and guideline indications for primary prophylactic ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). Primary end-point was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included SCD and cardiovascular death. Results: During a median follow-up of 38.5 months, 78 patients baseline data were analyzable. The primary outcome occurred in 8 patients in ICM group and 5 patients in DCM group (p = 0.012). Cardiovascular death occurred in 5 patients in ICM group and 3 patients in DCM group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.119, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.016-0.860, P = 0.035]. Resuscitated cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia occurred in 4 patients in ICM group and 8 patients in DCM group (HR 0.294, 95% CI 0.040-2.144, P = 0.227). Conclusions: DCM patients with ICD implantation could gain more benefit with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease compared with ICM patients, while the occurrence of SCD had no difference in two groups.