Ventricular Fibrillation Recurrences in Successfully Shocked Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests.

Background and Objectives: The prognostic impact of ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrences after a successful shock in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) is still poorly understood, and some evidence suggests a potential pro-arrhythmic effect of chest compressions in this setting. In the present analysis, we looked at the short-term and long-term prognosis of VF recurrences in OOHCA. And their potential association with chest compressions. Materials and Methods: The Progetto Vita, prospectively collecting data on all resuscitation efforts in the Piacenza province (Italy), was used for the present analysis. From the 461 OOHCAs found in a shockable rhythm, only those with optimal ECG tracings and good audio recordings (160) were assessed. Rhythms other than VF post-shock were analyzed five seconds after shock delivery and survival to hospital admission, hospital discharge, and long-term survival data over a 14-year follow-up were collected. Results: Population mean age was 64.4 ± 16.9 years, and 31.9% of all patients were female. Mean time to EMS arrival was 5.9 ± 4.5 min. Short- and long-term survival without neurological impairment were higher in patients without VF recurrence when compared to patients with VF recurrence, independently from the pre-induction rhythm (p < 0.001). After shock delivery, VF recurrence was higher when chest compressions were resumed early after discharge and more vigorously. Conclusions: VF recurrences after a shock could worsen short and long-term survival. The potential pro-arrhythmic effect of chest compressions should be factored in when considering the real risks and benefits of this procedure.

New York Heart Association class and the survival benefit from primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS: We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n=1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n=1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction=.036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Predicting appropriate shocks in patients with heart failure: Patient level meta-analysis from SCD-HeFT and MADIT II.

BACKGROUND: No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. RESULTS: There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks.

Community-based automated external defibrillator only resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

BACKGROUND: Speed is the cornerstone of rescue for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. As a consequence, community participation programs have been initiated to decrease response times. Even in the very best of these programs, however, short-term survival rates hover around 10% and long-term survival rates are half that. In most locales, survival is far worse. In Piacenza, Italy, responders have been trained for more than a decade to use publicly available automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and eschew the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is known locally as "Progetto Vita." METHODS: From 2001 to 2014, we prospectively collected outcome data on all Progetto Vita-treated patients and all 3271 standard emergency medical services (EMS) patients. Progetto Vita rescuers simply accessed a public AED, turned it on, and only followed its instructions. Progetto Vita rescuers did not do CPR of any sort. If EMS arrived prior to initiation or even completion of the Progetto Vita protocol, EMS-supplanted Progetto Vita efforts and patients were not included in the Progetto Vita cohort. Follow-up was collected by each responder's data files, medical record review, and use of the Italian system death index. All cardiac arrest patients' death status was validated in 100% of patients through August 1, 2014. FINDINGS: Survival to hospital discharge occurred in 39 (41.4%) of the 95 patients treated by Progetto Vita and in 193 (5.9%) of the 3271 EMS patients. At 13-year follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were 31.8% when AEDs only were used and 2.4% for standard EMS/CPR response. Estimates of survival are significantly better for Progetto Vita AED-only therapy when survival was stratified by time to respond, gender, location of cardiac arrest, and shockable rhythm. Relative to the 95 EMS patients with the fastest response times, Progetto Vita intervention was associated with a more than 2-fold increased rate of survival. INTERPRETATION: This is the first demonstration of excellent long-term survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by promoting speed and ease of lay AED response without CPR.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in CKD: a meta-analysis of patient-level data from 3 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) among patients with chronic kidney disease is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of patient-level data from randomized controlled trials. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with symptomatic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction<35%. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: From 7 available randomized controlled studies with patient-level data, we selected studies with available data for important covariates. Studies without patient-level data for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were excluded. INTERVENTION: Primary prevention ICD versus usual care effect modification by eGFR. OUTCOMES: Mortality, rehospitalizations, and effect modification by eGFR. RESULTS: We included data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), MADIT-II, and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). 2,867 patients were included; 36.3% had eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2. Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of death during follow-up was 43.3% for 1,334 patients receiving usual care and 35.8% for 1,533 ICD recipients. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was evidence that the survival benefit of ICDs in comparison to usual care depends on eGFR (posterior probability for null interaction P<0.001). The ICD was associated with survival benefit for patients with eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.24-0.95), but not for patients with eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.40-1.53). eGFR did not modify the association between the ICD and rehospitalizations. LIMITATIONS: Few patients with eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were available. Differences in trial-to-trial measurement techniques may lead to residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in baseline eGFR decrease the survival benefit associated with the ICD. These findings should be confirmed by additional studies specifically targeting patients with varying eGFRs.

An entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden death from cardiac causes in selected patients but require the use of transvenous lead systems. To eliminate the need for venous access, we designed and tested an entirely subcutaneous ICD system. METHODS: First, we conducted two short-term clinical trials to identify a suitable device configuration and assess energy requirements. We evaluated four subcutaneous ICD configurations in 78 patients who were candidates for ICD implantation and subsequently tested the best configuration in 49 additional patients to determine the subcutaneous defibrillation threshold in comparison with that of the standard transvenous ICD. Then we evaluated the long-term use of subcutaneous ICDs in a pilot study, involving 6 patients, which was followed by a trial involving 55 patients. RESULTS: The best device configuration consisted of a parasternal electrode and a left lateral thoracic pulse generator. This configuration was as effective as a transvenous ICD for terminating induced ventricular fibrillation, albeit with a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) energy requirement (36.6+/-19.8 J vs. 11.1+/-8.5 J). Among patients who received a permanent subcutaneous ICD, ventricular fibrillation was successfully detected in 100% of 137 induced episodes. Induced ventricular fibrillation was converted twice in 58 of 59 patients (98%) with the delivery of 65-J shocks in two consecutive tests. Clinically significant adverse events included two pocket infections and four lead revisions. After a mean of 10+/-1 months, the device had successfully detected and treated all 12 episodes of spontaneous, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: In small, nonrandomized studies, an entirely subcutaneous ICD consistently detected and converted ventricular fibrillation induced during electrophysiological testing. The device also successfully detected and treated all 12 episodes of spontaneous, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00399217 and NCT00853645.)

Feasibility of defibrillation and automatic arrhythmia detection using an exclusively subcutaneous defibrillator system in canines.

INTRODUCTION: This study reports the experimental process leading to development of an automatic totally subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD) system engineered for human use. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two studies were conducted to test defibrillation and detection feasibility of an SICD system located in the left chest. In the first study, 2 pockets were created in 15 canines for placement of an anterior electrode adjacent to the left edge of the sternum and a lateral electrode at the site along the axillary line between the 4th and 6th intercostal space. Stainless steel flat electrodes with active surface areas of 5, 10, 20, and 25 cm(2) or rod electrodes were subsequently positioned and the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was measured for multiple combinations. In the second study, the ability to induce, detect, and provide shock delivery in response to ventricular fibrillation (VF) using an SICD system engineered for clinical use was tested in 5 canines. One hundred and three DFT tests with 11 different dual electrode combinations were performed. All combinations terminated VF with a DFT of 35 ± 16 J (range: 9-79 J). Nineteen VF episodes were induced and recognized by the chronic SICD, leading to automatic capacitor charge and shock delivery in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous defibrillation using different electrode combinations with shock energies less than 80 J terminated all induced VFs. An automatic SICD proved effective in detecting and activating shock delivery in all cases.

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause. RESULTS: The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN trial: a Prospective, RAndomizEd comparison of subcuTaneOus and tRansvenous ImplANtable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used to prevent fatal outcomes associated with life-threatening arrhythmic episodes in a variety of cardiac diseases. These ICDs rely on transvenous leads for cardiac sensing and defibrillation. A new entirely subcutaneous ICD overcomes problems associated with transvenous leads. However, the role of the subcutaneous ICD as an adjunctive or primary therapy in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective 2-arm trial that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous ICD. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without an indication for bradypacing or tachypacing are included. A total of 700 patients are randomized to either the subcutaneous or transvenous ICD (1:1). The study is powered to claim noninferiority of the subcutaneous ICD with respect to the composite primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and ICD-related complications. After noninferiority is established, statistical analysis is done for potential superiority. Secondary endpoint comparisons of shock efficacy and patient mortality are also made. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence for the use of the subcutaneous ICD compared with the transvenous ICD in a population of patients with conventional ICD with respect to major ICD-related adverse events. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with trial ID NCT01296022.

Quality of life with defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy significantly prolongs life in patients at increased risk for sudden death from depressed left ventricular function. However, whether this increased longevity is accompanied by deterioration in the quality of life is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we compared ICD therapy or amiodarone with state-of-the-art medical therapy alone in 2521 patients who had stable heart failure with depressed left ventricular function. We prospectively measured quality of life at baseline and at months 3, 12, and 30; data collection was 93 to 98% complete. The Duke Activity Status Index (which measures cardiac physical functioning) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventory 5 (which measures psychological well-being) were prespecified primary outcomes. Multiple additional quality-of-life outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Psychological well-being in the ICD group, as compared with medical therapy alone, was significantly improved at 3 months (P=0.01) and at 12 months (P=0.003) but not at 30 months. No clinically or statistically significant differences in physical functioning among the study groups were observed. Additional quality-of-life measures were improved in the ICD group at 3 months, 12 months, or both, but there was no significant difference at 30 months. ICD shocks in the month preceding a scheduled assessment were associated with a decreased quality of life in multiple domains. The use of amiodarone had no significant effects on the primary quality-of-life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a large primary-prevention population with moderately symptomatic heart failure, single-lead ICD therapy was not associated with any detectable adverse quality-of-life effects during 30 months of follow-up.

Home use of automated external defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The most common location of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the home, a situation in which emergency medical services are challenged to provide timely care. Consequently, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to improve survival for patients at risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7001 patients with previous anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to receive one of two responses to sudden cardiac arrest occurring at home: either the control response (calling emergency medical services and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR]) or the use of an AED, followed by calling emergency medical services and performing CPR. The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 62 years; 17% were women. The median follow-up was 37.3 months. Overall, 450 patients died: 228 of 3506 patients (6.5%) in the control group and 222 of 3495 patients (6.4%) in the AED group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.17; P=0.77). Mortality did not differ significantly in major prespecified subgroups. Only 160 deaths (35.6%) were considered to be from sudden cardiac arrest from tachyarrhythmia. Of these deaths, 117 occurred at home; 58 at-home events were witnessed. AEDs were used in 32 patients. Of these patients, 14 received an appropriate shock, and 4 survived to hospital discharge. There were no documented inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSIONS: For survivors of anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator, access to a home AED did not significantly improve overall survival, as compared with reliance on conventional resuscitation methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure who receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about long-term prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. METHODS: Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P<0.001). An inappropriate ICD shock, as compared with no inappropriate shock, was also associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05; P=0.002). For patients who survived longer than 24 hours after an appropriate ICD shock, the risk of death remained elevated (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.04 to 4.37; P<0.001). The most common cause of death among patients who received any ICD shock was progressive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure in whom an ICD is implanted for primary prevention, those who receive shocks for any arrhythmia have a substantially higher risk of death than similar patients who do not receive such shocks.

Continuous ECG monitoring versus mobile telemetry: A comparison of arrhythmia diagnostics in human- versus algorithmic-dependent systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians rarely scrutinize the full disclosure of a myriad of FDA-approved long-term rhythm monitors, and they rely on manufacturers to detect and report relevant rhythm abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy between mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT), which uses an algorithm-based detection strategy, and continuous long-term electrocardiography (LT-ECG) monitoring, which uses a human-based detection strategy. METHODS: In an outpatient arrhythmia clinic, we enrolled 50 sequential patients ordered to wear a 30-day MCT, to simultaneously wear a continuous LT-ECG monitor. Periods of concomitant wear of both devices were examined using the associated report, which was over-read by 2 electrophysiologists. RESULTS: Forty-six of 50 patients wore both monitors simultaneously for an average of 10.3 ± 4.4 days (range: 1.2-14.8 days). During simultaneous recording, patients were more often diagnosed with arrhythmia by LT-ECG compared to MCT (23/46 vs 11/46), P = .018. Similarly, more arrhythmia episodes were detected during simultaneous recording with the LT-ECG compared to MCT (61 vs 19), P < .001. This trend remained consistent across arrhythmia subtypes, including ventricular tachycardia (13 patients by LT-ECG vs 7 by MCT), atrioventricular (AV) block (3 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT), and AV node reentrant tachycardia (2 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was documented by both monitors in 2 patients; however, LT-ECG monitoring captured 4 additional AF episodes missed by MCT. CONCLUSION: In a time-controlled, paired analysis of 2 disparate rhythm monitors worn simultaneously, human-dependent LT-ECG arrhythmia detection significantly outperformed algorithm-based MCT arrhythmia detection.

Outcomes for patients with anterior myocardial infarction and prior cardiac arrest in the home automated external defibrillator trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with sudden cardiac arrest occurring in the acute phase of myocardial infarction (MI-SCA) are believed to be at similar risk of death after revascularization compared with MI patients without SCA (MI-no SCA). Among patients with anterior MI, we examined whether those with MI-SCA were at greater risk of all-cause mortality or sudden cardiac death (SCD) than MI-no SCA patients. METHODS: The Home Automated External Defibrillator Trial enrolled patients with anterior MI who had not received or were candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Our cohort included patients with a reported SCA event, in the acute phase of an MI, prior to HAT trial enrollment. Cox proportional hazards models examined the adjusted association between MI-SCA versus MI-no SCA patients and all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). We also determined whether the relationship between prior SCA and outcomes changed with subsequent events (syncope, revascularization, and recurrent MI) during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 6849 patients, 650 (9.5%) had MI-SCA before trial enrollment. Approximately 48% of patients had the MI-SCA event ≤1 year prior to enrollment; 71% of SCA events were in-hospital. MI-SCA patients were younger, more frequently white, and had higher rates of prior PCI versus MI-no SCA patients. There were no differences in adjusted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.38]) or SCD (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.68-1.83) for MI-SCA vs. MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients experienced higher all-cause mortality risk (HR 5.01, 95% CI 1.05-23.79) versus MI-no SCA patients; there was no mortality difference between MI-SCA and MI-no SCA patients without ICD implantation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.60-1.31), [interaction p = 0.035]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MI-SCA had similar adjusted risk of all-cause mortality and SCD compared with MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients had higher mortality compared with MI-no SCA patients.

Maximizing survival benefit with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in a heart failure population.

BACKGROUND: Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces mortality in moderately symptomatic heart failure patients with an ejection fraction 20%), no benefit of ICD treatment was seen. Projected over each patient's predicted lifespan, ICD treatment added 6.3, 4.1, 3.0, 1.9, and 0.2 additional years of life in the lowest- to highest-risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical risk prediction model identified subsets of moderately symptomatic heart failure patients in SCD-HeFT in whom single-lead ICD therapy was of no benefit and other subsets in which benefit was substantial.

Impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, amiodarone, and placebo on the mode of death in stable patients with heart failure: analysis from the sudden cardiac death in heart failure trial.

BACKGROUND: The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35% on optimal medical therapy. Whether ICD therapy reduced sudden death caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias without affecting heart failure deaths in this population is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: SCD-HeFT randomized 2521 subjects to placebo, amiodarone, or shock-only, single-lead ICD therapy. Over a median follow-up of 45.5 months, a total of 666 deaths occurred, which were reviewed by an Events Committee and initially categorized as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further adjudicated as resulting from sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic, bradyarrhythmia, heart failure, or other cardiac causes. ICD therapy significantly reduced cardiac mortality compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95) and tachyarrhythmia mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.59) and had no impact on mortality resulting from heart failure or noncardiac causes. The cardiac and tachyarrhythmia mortality reductions were evident in subjects with New York Heart Association class II but not in subjects with class III heart failure. The reduction in tachyarrhythmia mortality with ICD therapy was similar in subjects with ischemic and nonischemic disease. Compared with placebo, amiodarone had no significant effect on any mode of death. CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy reduced cardiac mortality and sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic in SCD-HeFT and had no effect on heart failure mortality. Amiodarone had no effect on all-cause mortality or its cause-specific components, except an increase in non-cardiac mortality in class III patients. [corrected] CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000609.

Quality of life effects of automatic external defibrillators in the home: results from the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Public access automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) can save lives, but most deaths from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest occur at home. The Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) found no survival advantage for adding a home AED to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for 7,001 patients with a prior anterior wall myocardial infarction. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes for both the patient and spouse/companion were secondary end points. METHODS: A subset of 1,007 study patients and their spouse/companions was randomly selected for ascertainment of QOL by structured interview at baseline and 12 and 24 months after enrollment. The primary QOL measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form psychological well-being (reflecting anxiety and depression) and vitality (reflecting energy and fatigue) subscales. RESULTS: For patients and spouse/companions, the psychological well-being and vitality scales did not differ significantly between those randomly assigned an AED plus CPR training and controls who received CPR training only. None of the other QOL measures collected showed a clinically and statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Patients in the AED group were more likely to report being extremely or quite a bit reassured by their treatment assignment. Spouse/companions in the AED group reported being less often nervous about the possibility of using AED/CPR treatment than those in the CPR group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding access to a home AED to CPR training did not affect QOL either for patients with a prior anterior myocardial infarction or their spouse/companion but did provide more reassurance to the patients without increasing anxiety for spouse/companions.

Effectiveness of prophylactic implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators without cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Much controversy exists concerning the efficacy of primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with low ejection fraction due to coronary artery disease (CAD) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). This is also related to the bias created by function improving interventions added to ICD therapy, e.g. resynchronization therapy. The aim was to investigate the efficacy of ICD-only therapy in primary prevention in patients with CAD or DCM. METHODS AND RESULTS: Public domain databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched from 1980 to 2009 for randomized clinical trials of ICD vs. conventional therapy. Two investigators independently abstracted the data. Pooled estimates were calculated using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Eight trials were included in the final analysis (5343 patients). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators significantly reduced the arrhythmic mortality [relative risk (RR): 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.67] and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.82). Regardless of aetiology of heart disease, ICD benefit was similar for CAD (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.51-0.88) vs. DCM (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis provide strong evidence for the beneficial effect of ICD-only therapy on the survival of patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, if they are 40 days from myocardial infarction and ≥ 3 months from a coronary revascularization procedure.