Ezekowitz Justin A, Armstrong Paul W, McAlister Finlay A
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H7, Canada.
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 18;138(6):445-52. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00007.
Sudden cardiac death is common in persons with cardiovascular disease.
To assess the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in persons at increased risk for sudden cardiac death.
MEDLINE (1980-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002), Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Registry (2002, Volume 3), other databases, and conference proceedings. Primary study authors and device manufacturers were contacted, and bibliographies of relevant papers were hand searched.
Randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating ICDs versus usual care were selected.
Two reviewers extracted data independently.
Eight trials were included in the final analysis (4909 patients, 1154 deaths). Compared with usual care (most commonly amiodarone therapy), ICDs significantly reduced sudden cardiac death (relative risk [RR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.53]) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74 [CI, 0.67 to 0.82]). The included trials were divided a priori into two categories: secondary prevention (involving patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest or unstable ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation [ n = 1963]) and primary prevention (involving patients at increased risk for sudden cardiac death but without documented cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation, or ventricular tachycardia [ n = 2946]). Regardless of baseline risk, ICDs were equally efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death in both types of trials (RR, 0.50 [CI, 0.38 to 0.66] for secondary prevention vs. 0.37 [CI, 0.27 to 0.50] for primary prevention). However, the magnitude of benefit in total mortality varied within the primary prevention trials depending on baseline risk for sudden cardiac death.
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators prevent sudden cardiac death regardless of baseline risk. However, their impact on total mortality is sensitive to baseline risk for arrhythmic death. Decisions about resource allocation for ICDs depend on accurate stratification of patients according to risk.
心源性猝死在心血管疾病患者中很常见。
评估植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)对心源性猝死风险增加人群的疗效。
MEDLINE(1980 - 2002年)、EMBASE(1980 - 2002年)、Cochrane对照临床试验注册库(2002年,第3卷)、其他数据库及会议论文集。联系了主要研究作者和设备制造商,并手工检索了相关论文的参考文献。
选取评估ICD与常规治疗的随机对照临床试验。
两名审阅者独立提取数据。
最终分析纳入了8项试验(4909例患者,1154例死亡)。与常规治疗(最常见的是胺碘酮治疗)相比,ICD显著降低了心源性猝死(相对风险[RR],0.43[95%可信区间,0.35至0.53])和全因死亡率(RR,0.74[可信区间,0.67至0.82])。纳入的试验预先分为两类:二级预防(涉及心脏骤停、不稳定室性心动过速或心室颤动后复苏的患者[n = 1963])和一级预防(涉及心源性猝死风险增加但无心脏骤停、心室颤动或室性心动过速记录的患者[n = 2946])。无论基线风险如何,ICD在这两类试验中预防心源性猝死的效果相同(二级预防的RR为0.50[可信区间,0.38至0.66],一级预防的RR为0.37[可信区间,0.27至0.50])。然而,在一级预防试验中,总死亡率的获益程度因心源性猝死的基线风险而异。
植入式心脏复律除颤器无论基线风险如何均可预防心源性猝死。然而,其对总死亡率的影响对心律失常性死亡的基线风险敏感。关于ICD资源分配的决策取决于根据风险对患者进行准确分层。