Demir Emre, Köse Mehmet Ruhat, Şimşek Evrim, Orman Mehmet Nurullah, Zoghi Mehdi, Gürgün Cemil, Nalbantgil Sanem
Cardiology Department, Ege University School of Medicine, İzmir, Türkiye.
Kardiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kazım Dirik Mahallesi Ankara Caddesi, İzmir, 35100, Türkiye.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 9;15(1):24631. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09074-z.
The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well-established, particularly in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, the benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ICDs in HFrEF patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 1271 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were analyzed, of whom 46.3% received ICD implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, advanced heart failure therapies, and ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with ICM, ICD implantation significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861; p = 0.0004). However, in NICM patients, ICD therapy did not significantly reduce mortality or ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026; p = 0.074). Among 103 patients whose LVEF improved above 35% and who were excluded from the primary analysis, ICD implantation was associated with a survival advantage in NICM (HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870; p = 0.0041). In NICM patients, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included NYHA class III-IV (HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871; p = 0.001), moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126; p = 0.005), lower TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987; p = 0.011), and elevated NT-proBNP (log-transformed) (HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183; p = 0.019). A multivariate risk score developed through logistic regression in NICM patients with LVEF < 50% demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the primary outcome (AUC: 0.819, 95% CI 0.778-0.856). In conclusion, while ICDs confer clear survival benefits in ICM, their efficacy in NICM remains uncertain. Refinement of patient selection criteria, particularly in NICM, is warranted as modern heart failure therapies continue to evolve.
植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)在预防射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)患者心源性猝死方面的作用已得到充分证实,尤其是在缺血性心肌病(ICM)中。然而,ICD在非缺血性心肌病(NICM)中的获益仍不确定。本研究旨在比较ICD在缺血性与非缺血性心肌病的HFrEF患者中的疗效。共分析了1271例左心室射血分数(LVEF)≤35%的患者,其中46.3%接受了ICD植入。主要终点是全因死亡率、晚期心力衰竭治疗和室性心律失常的复合终点。在ICM患者中,ICD植入显著降低了主要终点的风险(HR 0.717,95%CI 0.595 - 0.861;p = 0.0004)。然而,在NICM患者中,ICD治疗并未显著降低死亡率或室性心律失常(HR 0.767,95%CI 0.573 - 1.026;p = 0.074)。在103例LVEF改善至35%以上且被排除在主要分析之外的患者中,ICD植入与NICM患者的生存优势相关(HR 0.645,95%CI 0.478 - 0.870;p = 0.0041)。在NICM患者中,主要终点的独立预测因素包括纽约心脏协会(NYHA)III - IV级(HR 1.934,95%CI 1.302 - 2.871;p = 0.001)、中度至重度二尖瓣反流(HR 1.956,95%CI 1.224 - 3.126;p = 0.005)、较低的三尖瓣环平面收缩期位移(TAPSE)(HR 0.945,95%CI 0.904 - 0.987;p = 0.011)以及升高的N末端B型利钠肽原(NT - proBNP)(对数转换)(HR 1.531,95%CI 1.074 - 2.183;p = 0.019)。通过对LVEF < 50%的NICM患者进行逻辑回归分析得出的多变量风险评分对主要结局具有较高的预测准确性(AUC:0.819,95%CI 0.778 - 0.856)。总之,虽然ICD在ICM中具有明确的生存获益,但其在NICM中的疗效仍不确定。随着现代心力衰竭治疗方法的不断发展,有必要完善患者选择标准,尤其是在NICM中。