Cargando…

Prognosis of Japanese Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Who Underwent Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation ― The JID-CAD Study ―

Background: There has been no large multicenter clinical trial on the prognosis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of the present study was to compare diffe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kabutoya, Tomoyuki, Mitsuhashi, Takeshi, Shimizu, Akihiko, Nitta, Takashi, Mitamura, Hideo, Kurita, Takashi, Abe, Haruhiko, Nakazato, Yuji, Sumitomo, Naokata, Kadota, Kazushige, Kimura, Kazuo, Okumura, Ken
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japanese Circulation Society 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7939950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33693292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-20-0122
Descripción
Sumario:Background: There has been no large multicenter clinical trial on the prognosis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of the present study was to compare differences in the prognoses of Japanese patients with CAD between primary and secondary prevention, and to identify potential predictors of prognosis. Methods and Results: We investigated 392 CAD patients (median age 69 years, 90% male) treated with ICD/CRT-D enrolled in the Japan Implantable Devices in CAD (JID-CAD) Registry. The primary endpoint was all-cause death, and the secondary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapies. Endpoints were assessed by dividing patients into primary prevention (n=165) and secondary prevention (n=227) groups. The mean (±SD) follow-up period was 2.1±0.9 years. The primary endpoint was similar in the 2 groups (P=0.350). Conclusions: The mortality rate in Japanese patients with CAD who underwent ICD/CRT-D implantation as primary prevention was not lower than that of patients who underwent ICD/CRT-D implantation as secondary prevention, despite the lower cardiac function in the patients undergoing ICD/CRT-D implantation as primary prevention.