Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Nov 2;153(9):592-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-9-201011020-00009.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have been proven effective in several clinical trials.
To summarize evidence about the effectiveness of ICDs versus standard medical therapy for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in different age groups of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Cardiosource, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1970 to April 2010) were searched with no language restrictions.
Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify randomized, controlled trials of prophylactic ICD versus medical therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction that provided data about mortality outcomes for different age groups.
Two independent reviewers assessed risk for bias of trials and extracted patient and study characteristics and hazard ratios (HRs) relevant to all-cause mortality.
Five trials (MADIT-II, DEFINITE, DINAMIT, SCD-HeFT, and IRIS) that enrolled 5783 patients (44% were elderly) were included. The primary analysis, which excluded the 2 trials enrolling patients early after acute myocardial infarction (DINAMIT and IRIS), found that prophylactic ICD therapy reduced mortality in younger patients (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.83]; P < 0.001). A smaller survival benefit was found in elderly patients (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91]) that was not confirmed when MADIT-II patients older than 70 years were excluded or when data from DINAMIT and IRIS were included [corrected].
Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available. Adjustment for differences in comorbid conditions and medical therapies among patients enrolled in the trials was not possible.
Available data suggest that prophylactic ICD therapy may be less beneficial for elderly patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction than for younger patients [corrected].
None.
植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)已被证明可有效预防心脏性猝死,在多项临床试验中得到了证实。
总结 ICD 与标准药物治疗在不同年龄段严重左心室功能障碍患者中的一级预防心脏性猝死的有效性证据。
MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、BioMed Central、Cardiosource、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 ISI Web of Science(1970 年 1 月至 2010 年 4 月),无语言限制。
两名独立的审查员筛选标题和摘要,以确定在严重左心室功能障碍患者中预防性 ICD 与药物治疗的随机对照试验,这些试验提供了不同年龄段死亡率结果的数据。
两名独立的审查员评估了试验的偏倚风险,并提取了与全因死亡率相关的患者和研究特征以及危险比(HRs)。
共有 5 项试验(MADIT-II、DEFINITE、DINAMIT、SCD-HeFT 和 IRIS)纳入了 5783 名患者(44%为老年人)。主要分析排除了 2 项在急性心肌梗死后早期入组的试验(DINAMIT 和 IRIS),结果发现预防性 ICD 治疗降低了年轻患者的死亡率(HR,0.65 [95% CI,0.50 至 0.83];P < 0.001)。在老年患者中发现了较小的生存获益(HR,0.75 [95% CI,0.61 至 0.91]),但当排除 MADIT-II 中年龄大于 70 岁的患者或当纳入 DINAMIT 和 IRIS 的数据时,这种获益并未得到确认。
四项潜在的合格试验未纳入荟萃分析,因为没有按年龄组提供死亡率数据。无法对试验入组患者的合并症和药物治疗差异进行调整。
现有数据表明,与年轻患者相比,预防性 ICD 治疗对严重左心室功能障碍的老年患者可能益处较小。
无。