Zabel Markus, Willems Rik, Lubinski Andrzej, Bauer Axel, Brugada Josep, Conen David, Flevari Panagiota, Hasenfuß Gerd, Svetlosak Martin, Huikuri Heikki V, Malik Marek, Pavlović Nikola, Schmidt Georg, Sritharan Rajevaa, Schlögl Simon, Szavits-Nossan Janko, Traykov Vassil, Tuinenburg Anton E, Willich Stefan N, Harden Markus, Friede Tim, Svendsen Jesper Hastrup, Sticherling Christian, Merkely Béla
Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 42a, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Eur Heart J. 2020 Sep 21;41(36):3437-3447. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa226.
The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy.
We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537-0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569-0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902).
In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.
欧洲评估原发性预防性植入式心脏复律除颤器使用的比较有效性研究(EU-CERT-ICD)是一项由研究者发起的前瞻性对照队列研究,在15个欧洲国家的44个中心开展。其目的是评估原发性预防ICD治疗的当前临床有效性。
我们招募了2327例患有缺血性心肌病(ICM)或扩张型心肌病(DCM)且有预防性ICD植入指南指征的患者。主要终点是全因死亡率。在入组基线时记录临床特征、用药情况、静息及12导联动态心电图(ECG)。对2247例患者的基线和随访(FU)数据进行分析,1516例首次植入ICD前的患者(ICD组)和731例未植入ICD的患者作为对照。使用多变量模型和倾向评分进行调整,以比较两组的死亡率。在平均2.4±1.1年的随访期间,发生342例死亡(年化死亡率6.3%,ICD组为5.6%/年,对照组为9.2%/年),支持ICD治疗[未调整风险比(HR)0.682,95%置信区间(CI)0.537 - 0.865,P = 0.0016]。多变量死亡率预测因素包括年龄、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、纽约心脏协会分级<III级以及慢性阻塞性肺疾病。与对照组相比,ICD调整后的死亡率降低27%(HR 0.731,95% CI 0.569 - 0.938,P = 0.0140)。亚组分析表明,ICD对糖尿病患者(调整后HR = 0.945,P = 0.7797,交互作用P = 0.0887)或年龄≥75岁的患者(调整后HR 1.063,P = 0.8206,交互作用P = 0.0902)无益处。
在当代ICM/DCM患者(LVEF≤35%,QRS波窄)中,原发性预防性ICD治疗调整后死亡率降低27%。似乎存在生存优势较小的患者,如老年患者或糖尿病患者。