Cargando…
Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to evaluate the role of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). SETTING: A meta-analysis of RCTs performed according to the Preferre...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5726098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28637742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016352 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: The objective of this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to evaluate the role of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). SETTING: A meta-analysis of RCTs performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant articles. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5 RCTs with 2573 patients with NICM were included. INTERVENTION: Primary prevention ICD, compared with medical therapy alone. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality (primary outcome) and sudden cardiac death (SCD, secondary outcome). DATA ANALYSIS: Summary estimate HR were constructed using the random-effect DerSimonian and Laird’s model. Multiple study-level subgroup analyses were performed, and interaction was tested using random-effect analysis. RESULTS: Compared with medical therapy alone, ICD placement was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; p<0.001; I(2)=0%) at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years. The risk of SCD was also lower with ICD placement (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73; p=0.001; I(2)=0%) compared with control. On subgroup analyses, there was a suggestion of possible effect modification by age, in which benefit was observed in age group <60 years (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.89), but not with age ≥60 years (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03) (P(interaction)=0.058), but not with other study-level variables. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with medical therapy alone, primary prevention ICD therapy in patients with NICM is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients. Future dedicated studies are needed to investigate the role of primary prevention ICD in the elderly population. PROSPEROREGISTRATIONNUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016052010. |
---|