Huang David T, Sesselberg Henry W, McNitt Scott, Noyes Katia, Andrews Mark L, Hall W Jackson, Dick Andrew, Daubert James P, Zareba Wojciech, Moss Arthur J
Cardiology Unit, the Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007 Aug;18(8):833-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00857.x. Epub 2007 May 30.
We aim to evaluate the mortality benefit from defibrillator therapy in eligible elderly patients. Effective primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with implantable cardioverter defibrillators is well demonstrated in patients with coronary disease and depressed ventricular function.
Among 1,232 patients enrolled with prior infarct and left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.30, 204 were > or = 75 years old. Of these 204 patients, 121 underwent defibrillator implant. Relative to the younger patients, those > or = 75 years had a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), widened QRS, and lower use of beta-blockers and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Relevant clinical covariates were similar in elderly patients randomized to conventional and defibrillator therapy. The hazard ratio for the mortality risk in patients > or = 75 years assigned to defibrillator implant compared with those in conventional therapy was 0.56 (95 confidence interval 0.29-1.08; P = 0.08) after a mean follow-up of 17.2 months. Comparatively, the hazard ratio in patients < 75 years assigned to defibrillator implant was 0.63 (0.45-0.88; P = 0.01) after 20.8 months. Elderly patients had similar reductions in quality of life (QoL) regardless of treatment randomization. Scores through Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI) Questionnaire changes from baseline to 1 year were -0.22 for patients with conventional therapy versus -0.20 for patients with ICD, and -0.36 versus -0.27 at 2 years, respectively (P = NS).
The implantable defibrillator is associated with an equivalent reduction of mortality in elderly and younger patients, with no compromise in the QoL in the older age subjects.
我们旨在评估除颤器治疗对符合条件的老年患者的死亡率益处。植入式心脏复律除颤器对冠心病伴心室功能减退患者进行有效的心脏性猝死一级预防已得到充分证实。
在1232例既往有心肌梗死且左心室射血分数≤0.30的患者中,204例年龄≥75岁。在这204例患者中,121例行除颤器植入术。与较年轻患者相比,年龄≥75岁的患者房颤发生率更高、血尿素氮(BUN)升高、QRS增宽,且β受体阻滞剂和HMG-CoA还原酶抑制剂的使用较少。随机接受传统治疗和除颤器治疗的老年患者的相关临床协变量相似。在平均随访17.2个月后,年龄≥75岁且接受除颤器植入术的患者与接受传统治疗的患者相比,死亡风险的风险比为0.56(95%置信区间0.29 - 1.08;P = 0.08)。相比之下,年龄<75岁且接受除颤器植入术的患者在随访20.8个月后的风险比为0.63(0.45 - 0.88;P = 0.01)。无论治疗随机分组如何,老年患者的生活质量(QoL)下降程度相似。通过健康效用指数Mark III(HUI)问卷从基线到1年的评分变化,接受传统治疗的患者为 - 0.22,接受植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗的患者为 - 0.20;在2年时分别为 - 0.36和 - 0.27(P = 无显著性差异)。
植入式除颤器在老年和年轻患者中降低死亡率的效果相当,且老年患者的生活质量不受影响。