Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark; Department of Health Research and Policy, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 15;133:116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.07.035. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
Data is lacking on the contemporary risk of death and readmission following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM) compared with ischemic cardiomyopathies (ICM) in a large nationally representative cohort. We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry linked with Medicare claims from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013. We established a cohort of NICM and ICM patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who received a de novo, primary prevention ICD. We compared mortality and readmission using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard regressions models. We also evaluated temporal trends in mortality. In 31,044 NICM and 68,458 ICM patients with a median follow up of 2.4 years, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in ICM patients (12.3%) compared with NICM (7.9%, p < 0.001). The higher mortality in ICM patients remained significant after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 1.45), and was consistent in subgroup analyses. These findings were consistent across the duration of the study. ICM patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted for all causes (adjusted HR 1.15, CI 1.12 to 1.18) and for heart failure (adjusted HR 1.25, CI 1.21 to 1.31). In conclusion, the risks of mortality and hospital readmission after primary prevention ICD implantation were significantly higher in patients with ICM compared with NICM which was consistent across all patient subgroups tested and over the duration of the study.
与缺血性心肌病(ICM)患者相比,在大型全国代表性队列中,缺乏关于非缺血性心肌病(NICM)患者植入植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)后死亡和再入院的当代风险的数据。我们使用国家心血管数据注册 ICD 登记处和 2010 年 4 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日期间的 Medicare 索赔进行了回顾性队列研究。我们建立了一个左心室射血分数≤35%的 NICM 和 ICM 患者队列,这些患者接受了新的、一级预防 ICD。我们使用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线和 Cox 比例风险回归模型比较死亡率和再入院率。我们还评估了死亡率的时间趋势。在 31044 名 NICM 和 68458 名 ICM 患者中,中位随访时间为 2.4 年,ICM 患者的 1 年死亡率明显高于 NICM 患者(12.3%比 7.9%,p<0.001)。调整协变量后,ICM 患者的死亡率仍然较高(风险比 [HR] 1.40;95%置信区间 [CI] 1.36 至 1.45),亚组分析结果一致。这些发现贯穿研究期间保持一致。ICM 患者也更有可能因所有原因(调整后的 HR 1.15,CI 1.12 至 1.18)和心力衰竭(调整后的 HR 1.25,CI 1.21 至 1.31)再次入院。总之,与 NICM 患者相比,ICM 患者一级预防 ICD 植入后死亡和住院再入院的风险明显更高,在所有测试的患者亚组中以及在研究期间均一致。