ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Heart failure is a prothrombotic state, and it has been hypothesised that thrombosis and embolism cause non-fatal and fatal events in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to determine the effect of anticoagulant therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of anticoagulation therapy in patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm. Our analysis compared patients randomised to anticoagulant therapy with those randomised to antiplatelet therapy, placebo or control, and examined the endpoints of all-cause mortality, (re)hospitalisation for worsening heart failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke of any aetiology and major haemorrhage. RESULTS: Five trials were identified that met the prespecified search criteria. Compared with control therapy, anticoagulant treatment did not reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08), (re)hospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13) or non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.13). Anticoagulation did reduce the rate of non-fatal stroke (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81, p=0.001), but this was offset by an increase in the incidence of major haemorrhage (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.38, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis provides evidence to oppose the hypothesis that thrombosis or embolism plays an important role in the morbidity and mortality associated with HFrEF, with the exception of stroke-related morbidity.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Heart Rate , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Disease Progression , Female , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Stroke/mortality , Stroke Volume , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/mortality , Thrombosis/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome , Ventricular Function, LeftABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment with a defibrillator can reduce the risk of sudden death by terminating ventricular arrhythmias. The identification of patient groups in whom this function reduces overall mortality is challenging. In this review, we summarise the evidence for who benefits from a defibrillator. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence suggests that contemporary pharmacologic and non-defibrillator device therapies are altering the potential risks and benefits of a defibrillator. Who benefits from a defibrillator is determined by both the risk of sudden death and the competing risk of other, non-sudden causes of death. The balance of these risks is changing, which calls into question whether historic evidence for the use of defibrillators remains robust in the modern era.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/prevention & control , Defibrillators, Implantable , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/etiology , Heart Failure/complications , Humans , Primary Prevention , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The recent Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-ischemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality (DANISH) trial suggested that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) do not reduce overall mortality in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), despite reducing sudden cardiac death. We performed an updated meta-analysis to examine the impact of ICD therapy on mortality in NICM patients. METHODS: A systematic search for studies that examined the effect of ICDs on outcomes in NICM was performed. Our analysis compared patients randomised to an ICD with those randomised to no ICD, and examined the endpoint of overall mortality. RESULTS: Six primary prevention trials and two secondary prevention trials were identified that met the pre-specified search criteria. Using a fixed-effects model, analysis of primary prevention trials revealed a reduction in overall mortality with ICD therapy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although our updated meta-analysis demonstrates a survival benefit of ICD therapy, the effect is substantively weakened by the inclusion of the DANISH trial-which is both the largest and most recent of the analysed trials-indicating that the residual pooled benefit of ICDs may reflect the risk of sudden death in older trials which included patients treated sub-optimally by contemporary standards. As such, these data must be interpreted cautiously. The results of the DANISH trial emphasise that there is no 'one size fits all' indication for primary prevention ICDs in NICM patients, and clinicians must consider age and comorbidity on an individual basis when determining whether a defibrillator is appropriate.