Follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: comparison of coronary artery disease and dilated cardiomyopathy

Purpose

Since several large trials have proven the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, disadvantages have become more apparent. As the prognosis of patients with cardiovascular diseases is improving, assessment of ICD patients and re-evaluation of the current guidelines is mandatory. We aimed to evaluate differences in mortality and occurrence of (in)appropriate shocks in ICD patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

Methods

In a large teaching hospital, all consecutive patients with systolic dysfunction due to CAD or DCM who received an ICD with and without resynchronisation therapy, were collected in a database.

Results

A total of 320 consecutive patients (age 67?±?10 years) were classified as CAD patients and 178 (63?±?11 years) as DCM patients. Median follow-up was 40 months (interquartile range IQR] 23─57 months). All–cause mortality was 14 % (CAD 15 % vs DCM 13 %). Appropriate shocks occurred in 13 % of all patients (CAD 15 % vs DCM 11 %, p?=?0.12) and inappropriate shocks occurred in 10 % (CAD 8 % vs DCM 12 %, p?=?0.27). Multivariate analysis demonstrated impaired left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS >120, age ≥75 years and low estimated glomerular filtration rate as predictors for all-cause mortality. Predictors for inappropriate shocks were permanent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Conclusion

Mortality rates were similar in patients with CAD and DCM who received an ICD. Furthermore, no differences were found in the occurrence of appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions between these patient groups.