George Johnson

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.

Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators offer a significant opportunity to decrease procedural morbidity and medical costs in the care of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who otherwise would have required a sternotomy or thoracotomy for device insertion. The purpose of this study was to examine prospectively the safety, efficacy, and limitations associated with the use of a transvenously implanted, tiered-therapy cardioverter-defibrillator with antitachycardia pacing function in a consecutive population of 84 ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS The index arrhythmia promoting transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was VF in 41 patients, VT in 27, and both VF and VT in 16. In each patient, transvenous defibrillation via a coronary sinus, a right ventricular, a superior vena caval, and/or a subcutaneous chest patch lead system was attempted. The pulsing methods used include two-electrode single-pathway pulsing or three-electrode dual-pathway simultaneous or sequential pulsing. A transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted if the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was < or = 20 J. Successful implantation of a transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was possible in 80 of 84 (95%) patients. The mean implant DFT was 10.9 +/- 4.8 J. After cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, all patients were extubated in the operating room and sent to a standard telemetry ward for monitoring. No patient suffered a postoperative pulmonary complication or perioperative flurry of cardiac arrhythmias. Postoperative complications included lead dislodgments in eight, transient long thoracic nerve injury in one, asymptomatic left subclavian vein occlusion in two, asymptomatic small pericardial effusion in one, subcutaneous patch pocket hematomas in four, pulse generator pocket infection in one, and lead fracture in one. As experience was gained with the procedure, it was routine to discharge patients 3 days after surgery. The mean hospital stay was 6.0 +/- 2.4 days. Upon discharge, all patients returned to their prehospital activities including those with complications except for the patient with a pocket infection, who required intravenous antibiotic therapy. Patient survival using an intention-to-treat analysis was 98% over an 11 +/- 7-month follow-up period. During this time period, 31 of the 80 patients (39%) with transvenous lead systems were successfully treated by their device for sustained VT or VF. Antitachycardia pacing was used in 424 episodes of monomorphic VT and was successful in 371 (88%). All episodes of VF were aborted by the device. Antiarrhythmic drugs were used after device implantation in only eight of 80 patients (10%). CONCLUSIONS Transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is practical in most candidates. Implant DFTs are usually low, surgical morbidity and postoperative complications are modest, therapy of VT and VF is efficient, and survival is excellent.

Cost-Effectiveness of Defibrillator Therapy or Amiodarone in Chronic Stable Heart Failure: Results From the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT)

Background— In the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy significantly reduced all-cause mortality rates compared with medical therapy alone in patients with stable, moderately symptomatic heart failure, whereas amiodarone had no benefit on mortality rates. We examined long-term economic implications of these results. Methods and Results— Medical costs were estimated by using hospital billing data and the Medicare Fee Schedule. Our base case cost-effectiveness analysis used empirical clinical and cost data to estimate the lifetime incremental cost of saving an extra life-year with ICD therapy relative to medical therapy alone. At 5 years, the amiodarone arm had a survival rate equivalent to that of the placebo arm and higher costs than the placebo arm. For ICD relative to medical therapy alone, the base case lifetime cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (discounted at 3%) were

A prospective randomized evaluation of biphasic versus monophasic waveform pulses on defibrillation efficacy in humans

38 389 per life-year saved (LYS) and

A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system.

41 530 per quality-adjusted LYS, respectively. A cost-effectiveness ratio <

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

100 000 was obtained in 99% of 1000 bootstrap repetitions. The cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to the amount of extrapolation beyond the empirical 5-year trial data:

Maximizing Survival Benefit With Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in a Heart Failure Population

127 503 per LYS at 5 years,

Clinical experience with a tiered-therapy, multiprogrammable antiarrhythmia device.

88 657 per LYS at 8 years, and

No Benefit From Defibrillation Threshold Testing in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)

58 510 per LYS at 12 years. Because of a significant interaction between ICD treatment and New York Heart Association class, the cost-effectiveness ratio was

Risk of Thromboembolism in Heart Failure An Analysis From the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT)

29 872 per LYS for class II, whereas there was incremental cost but no incremental benefit in class III. Conclusions— Prophylactic use of single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy is economically attractive in patients with stable, moderately symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction ≤35%, particularly those in NYHA class II, as long as the benefits of ICD therapy observed in the SCD-HeFT persist for at least 8 years.