Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for Heart Failure Patients according to Ischemic or Non-Ischemic Etiology in Korea.
- Author:
Kyu Hwan PARK
1
;
Chan Hee LEE
;
Byung Chun JUNG
;
Yongkeun CHO
;
Myung Hwan BAE
;
Yoon Nyun KIM
;
Hyoung Seob PARK
;
Seongwook HAN
;
Young Soo LEE
;
Dae Woo HYUN
;
Jun KIM
;
Dae Kyeong KIM
;
Tae Jun CHA
;
Dong Gu SHIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Multicenter Study ; Original Article
- Keywords: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Left ventricular dysfunction; Mortality; Heart failure
- MeSH: Cardiomyopathies; Convulsive Therapy; Death; Defibrillators, Implantable*; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Failure*; Heart*; Humans; Korea*; Mortality; Primary Prevention; Secondary Prevention; Shock; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
- From:Korean Circulation Journal 2017;47(1):72-81
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to describe clinical characteristics of patients with left ventriculars (LV) dysfunction and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and to evaluate the effect of ICD therapy on survival in Yeongnam province of Korea. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From a community-based device registry (9 centers, Yeongnam province, from November 1999 to September 2012), 146 patients with LV dysfunction and an ICD implanted for primary or secondary prophylaxis, were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups, based on the etiology (73 with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 73 with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy), and indication for the device implantation (36 for primary prevention and 110 for secondary prevention). The cumulative first shock rate, all cause death, and type and mode of death, were determined according to the etiology and indication. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the overall ICD shock rate was about 39.0%. ICD shock therapy was significantly more frequent in the secondary prevention group (46.4% vs. 16.7%, p=0.002). The cumulative probability of a first appropriate shock was higher in the secondary prevention group (p=0.015). There was no significant difference in the all-cause death, cardiac death, and mode of death between the groups according to the etiology and indication. CONCLUSION: Studies from this multicenter regional registry data shows that in both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients, the ICD shock therapy rate was higher in the secondary prevention group than primary prevention group.
