Prognostic Importance of Defibrillator Shocks in Patients with Heart Failure
Top Cited Papers
- 4 September 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in The New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 359 (10), 1009-1017
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa071098
Abstract
Patients with heart failure who receive an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about long-term prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P<0.001). An inappropriate ICD shock, as compared with no inappropriate shock, was also associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05; P=0.002). For patients who survived longer than 24 hours after an appropriate ICD shock, the risk of death remained elevated (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.04 to 4.37; P<0.001). The most common cause of death among patients who received any ICD shock was progressive heart failure. Among patients with heart failure in whom an ICD is implanted for primary prevention, those who receive shocks for any arrhythmia have a substantially higher risk of death than similar patients who do not receive such shocks.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks in MADIT II: Frequency, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Survival ImpactJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2008
- Causes and Consequences of Heart Failure After Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial IICirculation, 2006
- Atrial Fibrillation and Risk of Clinical Events in Chronic Heart Failure With and Without Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Results From the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) ProgramJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2006
- Prognostic relevance of atrial fibrillation in patients with chronic heart failure on long-term treatment with beta-blockers: results from COMETEuropean Heart Journal, 2005
- Amiodarone or an Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator for Congestive Heart FailureThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Long-Term Clinical Course of Patients After Termination of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia by an Implanted DefibrillatorCirculation, 2004
- Myocardial dysfunction after electrical defibrillationResuscitation, 2002
- Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection FractionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Analysis of Troponin I Levels After Spontaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ShocksJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2002
- The effects of biphasic and conventional monophasic defibrillation on postresuscitation myocardial functionJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1999