Narins Craig R, Aktas Mehmet K, Chen Anita Y, McNitt Scott, Ling Fred S, Younis Arwa, Zareba Wojciech, Daubert James P, Huang David T, Rosero Spencer, Kutyifa Valentina, Goldenberg Ilan
Division of Cardiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Division of Cardiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Jan;8(1):1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.06.020. Epub 2021 Aug 25.
This study sought to determine the association of cardiomyopathy etiology with the likelihood of ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, and mortality.
There are conflicting data on the benefit of primary prevention ICD therapy in patients with ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM/NICM).
The study population comprised 4803 patients with ICM (n = 3,106) or NICM (n = 1,697) with a primary prevention ICD enrolled in 5 randomized trials conducted between 1997 and 2017. The primary end point was sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Secondary end points included appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause mortality. Differences in cause-specific mortality, including noncardiac, sudden cardiac, and non-sudden cardiac death, were also examined.
Patients with ICM were significantly older and had more comorbid conditions, whereas those with NICM had a more advanced heart failure class at enrollment and were more often prescribed medical or cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. Multivariate analysis showed that ICM versus NICM had a similar risk of VT/VF events (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.79-1.20]) and appropriate ICD therapy (HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.87-1.22]), whereas the risk of all-cause mortality was 1.8-fold higher among ICM versus NICM patients (HR: 1.84 [95% CI: 1.42-2.38]), dominated by non-sudden cardiac mortality.
Combined data from 5 landmark ICD clinical trials show that ICM patients experience a similar risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmic events but have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, dominated by non-sudden cardiac death, compared with NICM patients.
本研究旨在确定心肌病病因与室性心律失常的可能性、合适的植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)治疗以及死亡率之间的关联。
关于缺血性与非缺血性心肌病(ICM/NICM)患者进行一级预防ICD治疗的益处,存在相互矛盾的数据。
研究人群包括4803例植入一级预防ICD的ICM患者(n = 3106)或NICM患者(n = 1697),这些患者参与了1997年至2017年期间进行的5项随机试验。主要终点为持续室性心动过速(VT)≥200次/分钟或心室颤动(VF)。次要终点包括合适的ICD治疗和全因死亡率。还检查了特定病因死亡率的差异,包括非心脏性、心源性猝死和非心源性猝死。
ICM患者年龄显著更大,合并症更多,而NICM患者在入组时心力衰竭分级更高,并且更常接受针对心力衰竭的药物或心脏再同步治疗。多变量分析显示,ICM与NICM发生VT/VF事件的风险相似(HR:0.98 [95%CI:0.79 - 1.20])以及接受合适ICD治疗的风险相似(HR:1.03 [95%CI:0.87 - 1.22]),而ICM患者的全因死亡率风险比NICM患者高1.8倍(HR:1.84 [95%CI:1.42 - 2.38]),主要由非心源性猝死导致。
来自5项具有里程碑意义的ICD临床试验的综合数据表明,与NICM患者相比,ICM患者发生危及生命的室性心律失常事件的风险相似,但全因死亡率增加,主要由非心源性猝死导致。