Healey Jeffrey S, Hallstrom Al P, Kuck Karl-Heinz, Nair Girish, Schron Eleanor P, Roberts Robin S, Morillo Carlos A, Connolly Stuart J
Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences-General Site, McMaster University, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada.
Eur Heart J. 2007 Jul;28(14):1746-9. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl438. Epub 2007 Feb 5.
The implantable defibrillator (ICD) reduces arrhythmic and all-cause mortality in patients with a history of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, its effectiveness in elderly patients is uncertain, given their competing risk of non-arrhythmic death.
Individual patient data from all three secondary prevention trials comparing the ICD to amiodarone were pooled. Patients were divided into two groups based on age < 75 and > or = 75 years. Patient characteristics were reported and the effect of the ICD on all-cause mortality and arrhythmic death was determined for each group. The effect of age on these outcomes was determined by evaluating the interaction term (age-treatment). A total of 1866 patients were included in this analysis. Their mean age was 63.7 +/- 10.4 years (intra-quartile range 58-71 years). There were 252 patients > or = 75 years old (13.5% of total). Patients > or = 75 years old had a similar left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF)(32.6 +/- 13.7 vs. 33.8 +/- 14.9%, P = 0.20) and baseline prevalence of NYHA class 3 or 4 heart (12.3 vs. 11.8%, P = 0.38) failure as younger patients, but were less likely to have ventricular fibrillation as their presenting arrhythmia (39 vs. 53%, P = 0.0001). Over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, older patients were more likely to die of non-arrhythmic death (8.74% per year vs. 3.96% per year, P = 0.001) and arrhythmic death (6.73% per year vs. 3.84% per year, P = 0.03). The ICD significantly reduced all-cause and arrhythmic death in patients < 75 years old (all-cause death HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.85, P < 0.0001; arrhythmic death HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.32-0.62, P < 0.0001), but not in patients > or = 75 years old (all-cause death HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.69-1.64, P = 0.79; arrhythmic death HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.42-1.95, P = 0.79). The interaction between age > or = 75 and ICD use was of borderline significance in each case (P = 0.09 and P = 0.11, respectively).
Elderly patients with a history of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias have a high incidence of non-arrhythmic death. In these patients, the ICD may not afford the same survival advantage over amiodarone that is seen in younger patients. ICD therapy should not be withheld based on age alone; however, physicians should carefully consider the risk of non-arrhythmic death among elderly patients when selecting the appropriate therapy for an individual.
植入式心脏除颤器(ICD)可降低有危及生命的室性心律失常病史患者的心律失常及全因死亡率。然而,鉴于老年患者存在非心律失常性死亡的竞争风险,其有效性尚不确定。
汇总了所有三项比较ICD与胺碘酮的二级预防试验的个体患者数据。根据年龄<75岁和≥75岁将患者分为两组。报告患者特征,并确定每组中ICD对全因死亡率和心律失常性死亡的影响。通过评估交互项(年龄-治疗)来确定年龄对这些结果的影响。本分析共纳入1866例患者。他们的平均年龄为63.7±10.4岁(四分位间距58 - 71岁)。有252例患者年龄≥75岁(占总数的13.5%)。年龄≥75岁的患者左心室射血分数(EF)与年轻患者相似(32.6±13.7%对33.8±14.9%,P = 0.20),纽约心脏协会3或4级心力衰竭的基线患病率也相似(12.3%对11.8%,P = 0.38),但以心室颤动作为首发心律失常的可能性较小(39%对53%,P = 0.0001)。在平均2.3年的随访中,老年患者死于非心律失常性死亡的可能性更高(每年8.74%对每年3.96%,P = 0.001),死于心律失常性死亡的可能性也更高(每年6.73%对每年3.84%,P = 0.03)。ICD显著降低了年龄<75岁患者的全因死亡和心律失常性死亡(全因死亡风险比[HR]=0.69,95%置信区间[CI]:0.56 - 0.85,P<0.0001;心律失常性死亡HR = 0.44,95%CI:0.32 - 0.62,P<0.0001),但在年龄≥75岁的患者中未降低(全因死亡HR = 1.06,95%CI:0.69 - 1.64,P = 0.79;心律失常性死亡HR = 0.90,95%CI:0.42 - 1.95,P = 0.79)。年龄≥75岁与使用ICD之间的交互作用在每种情况下均具有临界显著性(分别为P = 0.09和P = 0.11)。
有危及生命的室性心律失常病史的老年患者非心律失常性死亡发生率高。在这些患者中,ICD可能无法像在年轻患者中那样比胺碘酮提供相同的生存优势。不应仅基于年龄而不给予ICD治疗;然而,医生在为个体选择合适的治疗方法时应仔细考虑老年患者中非心律失常性死亡的风险。