Device Use Patterns and Clinical Outcome of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients with Moderate and Severe Impairment of Left Ventricular Function
- 1 January 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
- Vol. 16 (1), 179-185
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1993.tb01558.x
Abstract
The beneficial effects of implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias and variable degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are debated. ICD use and patient survival were examined in 128 patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias and moderate or severe LV dys function. Group I included 64 patients with moderate LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction of > 30%) and group H, 64 patients with severe LV dysfunction (LV ejection fracfion of ≤ 30%). Follow‐up period ranged from 1 to 78 months. The two groups were similar in age, incidence of coronary artery disease and presenting arrhythmia. The mean LV ejection fraction in group I was 44%± 8% and group II was 22%± 5% (P < 0.0001). At 4 years of follow‐up, 66% of patients from group I and 62% from group II (P = NS) had ICD activation for presumed ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Survival was calculated using actuarial analysis. Arrhythmic or sudden death mortality at 4 years of follow‐up was 4% in group I and 7% in group II (P = NS). Cardiac mortality was for group I, 7% (P < 0.05), 12% (fP < 0,01), 15% (P < 0.01), and 15% (P < 0.01) for follow‐up years 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For group II, cardiac mortality was 27%, 36%, 41%, and 41% for follow‐up years for 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The majority of cardiac deaths in both groups was observed in the first 2 years of follow‐up. However, in both groups, cardiac mortality was comparable in patients who did (users) and did not (nonusers) experience appropriate ICD shocks. Thus, the incidence of long‐term ICD use is comparable in patients with moderate and severe LV dysfunction. Cardiac mortality is higher in patients with severe LV dysfunction in the first 4 years of follow‐up irrespective of device use. The comparable long‐term clinical outcome of ICD users and non users in patients with moderate or severe LV dysfunction can be related to elimination of arrhythmic mortality. Long‐term patient survival in ICD recipients with severe LV dysfunction remains substantial even at 4 years of follow‐up.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Efficacy of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in prolonging survival in patients with severe underlying cardiac diseaseJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1990
- Initial clinical experience with endocardial defibrillation using an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator with a triple-electrode systemArchives of Internal Medicine, 1989
- Preliminary Report: Effect of Encainide and Flecainide on Mortality in a Randomized Trial of Arrhythmia Suppression after Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1989
- Time to first shock and clinical outcome in patients receiving an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1989
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- A Randomized Trial of Coronary Artery Bypass SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 1985
- The relationships among ventricular arrhythmias, left ventricular dysfunction, and mortality in the 2 years after myocardial infarction.Circulation, 1984
- Determinants of Survival in Patients with Ventricular TachyarrhythmiasNew England Journal of Medicine, 1983
- Survival in men with severe chronic left ventricular failure due to either coronary heart disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathyThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1983
- Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete ObservationsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1958