Importance Conflicting data have emerged on the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (primary prevention ICDs) in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Objective To investigate the association of primary prevention ICDs with all-cause mortality in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Data Sources PubMed was searched from January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2016, for the terms implantable defibrillator OR implantable cardioverter defibrillator AND non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Additional references were identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and queries to experts in this field. Study Selection Inclusion criteria consisted of a randomized clinical trial design and comparison of the ICD with medical therapy (control) in at least 100 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. In addition, studies had to report on all-cause mortality during a follow-up period of at least 12 months and be published in English. The search yielded 10 studies, of which only 1 met the inclusion criteria. A search of bibliographies of pertinent articles and queries of experts in this field led to 3 additional studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis The PRISMA guidelines were used to abstract data and assess data quality and validity. Data were pooled using fixed- and random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Before data collection started, primary prevention ICDs were hypothesized to reduce all-cause mortality among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Results Four randomized clinical trials met the selection criteria and included 1874 unique patients; 937 were in the ICD group and 937 in the control group. Pooling data from these trials showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with an ICD (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93; P = .008; P = .87 for heterogeneity). Conclusions and Relevance Primary prevention ICDs are efficacious at reducing all-cause mortality among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. These findings support professional guidelines that recommend the use of ICDs in such patients.
[1]
P. Arora,et al.
Response by Golwala et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis".
,
2017,
Circulation.
[2]
P. Arora,et al.
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis.
,
2017,
Circulation.
[3]
Hans Eiskjær,et al.
Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure.
,
2016,
The New England journal of medicine.
[4]
C. Reid,et al.
The treatment gap in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: a systematic review of evidence-based prescribing in practice
,
2016,
Heart Failure Reviews.
[5]
Mark A Hlatky,et al.
2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.
,
2013,
Circulation.
[6]
Douglas L Packer,et al.
Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.
,
2005,
The New England journal of medicine.
[7]
A. Khasnis,et al.
Prophylactic Defibrillator Implantation in Patients With Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy
,
2004
.
[8]
Hugh Calkins,et al.
Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.
,
2004,
The New England journal of medicine.
[9]
K. Kuck,et al.
Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: The Cardiomyopathy Trial (CAT)
,
2002,
Circulation.