Volume 42, Issue 10 pp. 866-872
CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Open Access

Contemporary benefit-harm profile over two decades in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy

Thomas Kleemann

Corresponding Author

Thomas Kleemann

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Correspondence

Thomas Kleemann, MD, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Bremserstraße 79, DE-67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Margit Strauss

Margit Strauss

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Kleopatra Kouraki

Kleopatra Kouraki

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Eleni Lampropoulou

Eleni Lampropoulou

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Andràs Fendt

Andràs Fendt

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Nicolas Werner

Nicolas Werner

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Ralf Zahn

Ralf Zahn

Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Medizinische Klinik B, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 July 2019
Citations: 9

Abstract

Background

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implemented into clinical routine more than 20 years ago. Since then, ICD therapy became standard therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in clinical practice.

Objectives

Aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit-harm profile of contemporary primary prophylactic ICD therapy.

Methods

A total of 1222 consecutive patients of a prospective single-center ICD-registry were analyzed who underwent primary prophylactic ICD implantation between 2000 and 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the implantation year: 2010-2017 (group 1, n = 579) and 2000-2009 (group 2, n = 643).

Results

The rate of estimated appropriate ICD therapy after 8 years was 51% in the 2000s and 42% in the 2010s (P < .001). The complication rate changed slightly from 53% to 47% (P = .005). This decline was mainly driven by the reduction of inappropriate ICD shocks (30% vs 14%, P < .001) whereas the rate of ICD shock lead malfunction and device/ lead infection remained unchanged over time. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy was an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.77).

Conclusion

The ICD therapy rate for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary prophylactic ICD implantation is decreasing over the last two decades. Complication rate remains high due to an unchanged rate of ICD shock malfunctions and device infections. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is an independent predictor for ICD complications without benefit of ICD therapy in primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.