The impact of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation on quality of life, depression and optimism in dialysis patients: report on the secondary outcome of QOL in the randomized controlled ICD2 trial.

RATIONALE: The impact of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation on the psychological well-being of patients on dialysis is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the effect of primary ICD implantation on quality of life (QoL), mood and dispositional optimism in patients undergoing dialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prespecified subanalysis of the randomized controlled ICD2 trial. In total, 177 patients on chronic dialysis, with an age of 55-81 years, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥ 35%, were included in the per-protocol analysis. Eighty patients received an ICD for primary prevention, and 91 patients received standard care. The Short Form-36 (SF-36), Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15), Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) questionnaires were administered prior to ICD implantation (T0), and at 1-year follow-up (T1) to assess QoL, depression and optimism, respectively. The patients were predominantly male (76.0%), with a median age of 67 years. Hemodialysis was the predominant mode of dialysis (70.2%). The GDS-15 score difference (T1 - T0) was 0.5 (2.1) in the ICD group compared with 0.3 (2.2) in the control group (mean difference - 0.3; 95% CI - 1.1 to 0.6; P = 0.58). The LOT-R score difference was - 0.2 (4.1) in the ICD group compared with - 1.5 (4.0) in the control group (mean difference - 1.1 (0.8); 95% CI - 2.6 to 0.4; P = 0.17). The mean difference scores of all subscales of the SF-36 were not significantly different between randomization groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our population of patients on dialysis, ICD implantation did not affect QoL, mood or dispositional optimism significantly during 1-year follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: ISRCTN20479861. http://www.controlled-trials.com .

Prophylactic Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Dialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease who are undergoing dialysis are reported to be at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), and to date, no therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing this risk. The feasibility and value of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to prevent SCD is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted the ICD2 trial (Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Dialysis Patients), a prospective, randomized, controlled study investigating the value and safety of ICD implantation to prevent SCD in 200 patients on dialysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥35%, after adequate screening and optimization of other treatments. The primary end point was SCD. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality and ICD-related complications. RESULTS: The trial was stopped as per the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board for futility reasons after inclusion of 188 patients, 97 in the ICD group and 91 in the control group. The median duration of follow-up was 6.8 years (interquartile range, 3.8-8.8 years). SCD occurred in 19 of 188 cases (10.1%), 11 of 97 in the ICD group and 8 of 91 in the control group. The cumulative SCD incidence at 5 years was 9.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-16.2%) in the ICD group and 7.9% (95% CI, 1.7-14.0%) in the control group, resulting in a hazard ratio of 1.32 (95% CI, 0.53-3.29; P=0.55). Overall, 99 of 188 patients died (52.7%), 52 in the ICD group and 47 in the control group. Five-year survival probability was 50.6% (95% CI, 39.8%-61.5%) in the ICD group and 54.5% (95% CI, 43.0-66.0%) in the control group, resulting in a hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.69-1.52; P=0.92). Among 80 patients who received an ICD, 25 adverse events related to ICD implantation occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-screened and well-treated population undergoing dialysis, prophylactic ICD therapy did not reduce the rate of SCD or all-cause mortality, which remained high. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN20479861.

Development of Central Venous Stenosis Upon ICD Implantation in Dialysis Patients: A Non-Negligible Issue.

Background: In hemodialysis patients, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation may result in central venous stenosis (CVS) with associated symptoms, such as pain, edema of the ipsilateral arm, facial edema, and loss of dialysis access. However, literature concerning CVS in dialysis patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device is scarce. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in which we investigated the incidence of CVS in end-stage renal disease patients on chronic dialysis who received an ICD as part of participation in the randomized ICD2 trial. A venography was performed before ICD implantation and at 1 year follow-up. Results: Between 2007 and 2017, 80 patients on dialysis received an ICD according to ICD2 trial protocol. Our population mainly consisted of males (76.3%), and had a median age of 67 years. Hemodialysis was the predominant dialysis modality (71.3%). The ICD was implanted in the right pectoral region in 58 patients (72.5%). A minority of the patients (27.5%) had a history of central venous catheters use, ipsilateral to ICD implantation site. Median follow-up was 16 months (IQR 13-35). Prospective assessment of central vein patency was possible in 56 patients (70.0%). Partial obstruction of central vein at follow-up was present in 19 out of 56 patients (33.9%) and complete occlusion in 4 patients (7.1%). With a complete clinical follow-up of all patients with a median duration of 3.5 years (IQR 2.7 - 6.3), 3 patients developed clinically significant symptoms of CVS. Conclusions: Development of CVS in patients on chronic dialysis who received an ICD is a cause of concern. Prevention of such complications deserves attention and further research. Trial Registration: ISRCTN20479861.

Effect of No Prehydration vs Sodium Bicarbonate Prehydration Prior to Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in the Prevention of Postcontrast Acute Kidney Injury in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: The Kompas Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Prevention of postcontrast acute kidney injury in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) by means of prehydration has been standard care for years. However, evidence for the need for prehydration in this group is limited. Objective: To assess the renal safety of omitting prophylactic prehydration prior to iodine-based contrast media administration in patients with stage 3 CKD. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Kompas trial was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial conducted at 6 hospitals in the Netherlands in which 523 patients with stage 3 CKD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive no prehydration or prehydration with 250 mL of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate administered in a 1-hour infusion before undergoing elective contrast-enhanced computed tomography from April 2013 through September 2016. Final follow-up was completed in September 2017. Data were analyzed from January 2018 to June 2019. Interventions: In total, 262 patients were allocated to the no prehydration group and 261 were allocated to receive prehydration. Analysis on the primary end point was available in 505 patients (96.6%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the mean relative increase in serum creatinine level 2 to 5 days after contrast administration compared with baseline (noninferiority margin of less than 10% increase in serum creatinine level). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postcontrast acute kidney injury 2 to 5 days after contrast administration, mean relative increase in creatinine level 7 to 14 days after contrast administration, incidences of acute heart failure and renal failure requiring dialysis, and health care costs. Results: Of 554 patients randomized, 523 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median (interquartile range) age was 74 (67-79) years; 336 (64.2%) were men and 187 (35.8%) were women. The mean (SD) relative increase in creatinine level 2 to 5 days after contrast administration compared with baseline was 3.0% (10.5) in the no prehydration group vs 3.5% (10.3) in the prehydration group (mean difference, 0.5; 95% CI, -1.3 to 2.3; P < .001 for noninferiority). Postcontrast acute kidney injury occurred in 11 patients (2.1%), including 7 of 262 (2.7%) in the no prehydration group and 4 of 261 (1.5%) in the prehydration group, which resulted in a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI, 0.5-5.9; P = .36). None of the patients required dialysis or developed acute heart failure. Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of statistical interactions between treatment arms and predefined subgroups. Mean hydration costs were €119 (US $143.94) per patient in the prehydration group compared with €0 (US $0) in the no prehydration group (P < .001). Other health care costs were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with stage 3 CKD undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography, withholding prehydration did not compromise patient safety. The findings of this study support the option of not giving prehydration as a safe and cost-efficient measure. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR3764.