Chan Paul S, Nallamothu Brahmajee K, Spertus John A, Masoudi Frederick A, Bartone Cheryl, Kereiakes Dean J, Chow Theodore
Mid-America Heart Institute and University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009 Jan;2(1):16-24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.807123. Epub 2009 Jan 6.
Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in primary prevention patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, recent studies have questioned their overall role in clinical practice, especially in older patients and those with major comorbid conditions.
In a prospective cohort of 965 patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies (ejection fraction <or=35%) and no prior ventricular arrhythmias, we compared long-term mortality in patients who did (n=494 [51%]) and did not receive ICDs over a mean follow-up period of 34+/-16 months. Using a landmark analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models that included propensity scores for ICD implantation assessed the relationship between ICD therapy and mortality in the entire cohort and by age and the presence of major comorbid conditions. Data from these analyses were then used as inputs in a Markov model to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ICD therapy. Patients who received ICDs were similar in age and prevalence of most major comorbid conditions, including symptomatic heart failure. After multivariable adjustment, ICD therapy was associated with a 31% lower risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; P=0.03). The relationship between ICD therapy and lower all-cause mortality was consistent after stratification by age (<65, 65 to 74, and >or=75), ischemic etiology, ejection fraction (>25% versus <or=25%), and the presence of major comorbid conditions (probability values for all interactions >0.05). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ICD therapy were similar between patients aged >or=75 years and younger patients but rose slightly in those with multiple comorbid conditions.
Routine use of ICDs in primary prevention patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction was associated with lower all-cause mortality, even among older patients and those with major comorbid conditions. Although their use needs to be individualized, our findings suggest that these groups should not be routinely excluded from ICD treatment.
尽管植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)可降低左心室收缩功能障碍的一级预防患者的死亡率,但最近的研究对其在临床实践中的整体作用提出了质疑,尤其是在老年患者和患有严重合并症的患者中。
在一个包含965例缺血性和非缺血性心肌病患者(射血分数≤35%)且无既往室性心律失常的前瞻性队列中,我们比较了接受ICD治疗的患者(n = 494 [51%])和未接受ICD治疗的患者在平均34±16个月随访期内的长期死亡率。采用里程碑分析,多变量Cox比例风险模型(包括ICD植入的倾向评分)评估了ICD治疗与整个队列以及按年龄和是否存在严重合并症分层后的死亡率之间的关系。然后将这些分析的数据用作马尔可夫模型的输入,以生成ICD治疗的增量成本效益比。接受ICD治疗的患者在年龄和大多数严重合并症(包括症状性心力衰竭)的患病率方面相似。多变量调整后,ICD治疗与全因死亡率降低31%相关(调整后的风险比,0.69;95% CI,0.50至0.96;P = 0.03)。按年龄(<65岁、65至74岁和≥75岁)、缺血病因、射血分数(>25%与≤25%)以及是否存在严重合并症分层后,ICD治疗与较低的全因死亡率之间的关系一致(所有交互作用的概率值>0.05)。ICD治疗的增量成本效益比在≥75岁患者和较年轻患者之间相似,但在患有多种合并症的患者中略有上升。
在左心室收缩功能障碍的一级预防患者中常规使用ICD与较低的全因死亡率相关,即使在老年患者和患有严重合并症的患者中也是如此。尽管其使用需要个体化,但我们的研究结果表明,这些人群不应被常规排除在ICD治疗之外。