Comparison of 2-year outcomes between primary and secondary prophylactic use of defibrillators in patients with coronary artery disease: A prospective propensity score–matched analysis from the Nippon Storm Study

Heart Rhythm O2

卷:2

Takashi Noda, MD¹  Takashi Nitta, MD²  Yusuke Kondo, MD³  Yasunori Sato, PhD⁴  Yoshifusa Aizawa, MD⁵  Marehiko Ueda, MD⁶  Tohru Ohe, MD⁷  Takashi Kurita, MD, FHRS⁸ 

[1] Address reprint requests and correspondence: Dr Yusuke Kondo, Associate Professor, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan.;

[2] Department of Cardiology, Eastern Chiba Medical Center, Chiba, Japan;

[3] Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan;

[4] Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan;

[5] Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan;

[6] Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;

[7] Department of Research and Development, Tachikawa Medical Center, Niigata, Japan;

[8] Okayama City Hospital, Okayama, Japan;

关键词: Coronary artery disease;    Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator;    Nippon Storm Study;    Primary prophylaxis;    Secondary prophylaxis;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Background: The Nippon Storm Study was a prospective observational study designed to gather clinical data on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in Japanese patients. Objective: The purpose of this subanalysis was to compare the incidence of ICD therapy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction owing to coronary artery disease (CAD) for primary and secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death. Methods: We analyzed data of 493 patients with CAD and ICDs (men, 87%; age, 68 ± 10 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 36% ± 13%; primary prophylaxis, 36%). All patients were followed up for at least 2 years. Propensity score matching was used to select patient subgroups for comparison: 133 patients with ICD for primary prophylaxis and 133 with ICD for secondary indications. Results: There were no significant differences between primary and secondary prophylaxis groups with respect to the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy within 2 years (0.153 vs 0.239; hazard ratio, 1.565 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.898–2.727]; P = .114). Two-year electrical storm risks were 3.3% and 9.6% with HR = 3.236 (95% CI, 1.058–9.896; P = .039) in patients with primary and secondary prophylaxis, respectively. Conclusion: The incidence of ICD therapy received by patients with CAD for primary and secondary prophylaxis was not significantly different based on our propensity score–matched analysis. However, secondary-prophylaxis ICD therapy seems to be associated with a significantly higher risk for electrical storm than primary-prophylaxis ICD therapy.

【 授权许可】

Unknown