Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement for Primary Prevention in 2,346 Patients: Predictors of One-Year Survival.

Guidelines suggest that patients who receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention should be expected to live more than one year after placement. However, tools for validating this prognosis are not sufficiently predictive. We sought to identify definitive predictors of one-year survival after ICD placement. By reviewing medical records and the Social Security Death Index, we analyzed baseline characteristics and survival outcomes of 3,164 patients who underwent ICD placement at our institution from January 2006 through March 2014. Survival outcome could be confirmed for 2,346 patients (74%). Of these, 184 (7.8%) died within one year of ICD placement. We noted significant differences in numerous variables between those who lived and died. However, multivariable analysis revealed only 5 independent predictors of earlier death: worse New York Heart Association functional class (hazard ratio [HR]=1.87 per class [95% CI, 1.22-2.87]; P <0.01); lower serum sodium level (HR=0.93 per 1 mEq/L increase [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; P=0.04); atrial fibrillation (HR=1.81 [95% CI, 1.03-3.21]; P=0.04); chronic lung disease (HR=2.05 [95% CI, 1.20-3.51]; P <0.01), and amiodarone use (HR=10.1 [95% CI, 4.51-22.5]; P <0.01). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we developed a model with an area under the curve of 0.718 that predicted death at one year after ICD implantation. Despite significant univariate differences between the ICD recipients who did and did not live beyond one year, we found only moderate predictors of survival. Better tools are needed to predict outcomes when considering ICD placement for primary prevention.

Long-term survival of implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients with end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) has not been studied in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and left ventricular dysfunction. We sought to identify predictors of long-term survival among ICD recipients with and without ESRD. METHODS: Patients implanted with an ICD at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were retrospectively identified. Clinical and demographic characteristics were collected. Patients were stratified by the presence of ESRD at the time of ICD implant. Mortality data were collected from the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). RESULTS: A total of 3453 patients received an ICD at our institution in the pre-specified time period, 184 (5.3%) of whom had ESRD. In general, ESRD patients were sicker and had more comorbidities. Kaplan Meier survival curve showed that ESRD patients had worse survival as compared with non-dialysis patients (p<0.001). Following adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, patients with ESRD remained at increased long-term mortality in the Cox model. The one-year mortality in the ESRD patients was 18.1%, as compared with 7.7% in the non-dialysis cohort (p<0.001). The three-year mortality in ESRD patients was 43%, as compared with 21% in the non-dialysis cohort (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: ESRD patients are at significantly increased risk of mortality as compared with a non-dialysis cohort. While the majority of these patients survive more than one year post-diagnosis, the three-year mortality is high (43%). Randomized studies addressing the benefits of ICDs in ESRD patients are needed to better define their value for primary prevention of SCD.

Procedural outcomes and long-term survival following trans-venous defibrillator lead extraction in patients with end-stage renal disease.

AIMS: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) increases the risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) infection. We sought to define outcomes of lead extraction in patients with ESRD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extractions at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were stratified by absence (Control-Ex, n = 465) or presence (ESRD-Ex, n = 43) of ESRD. Procedural outcomes and survival were determined by medical records review. Survival in the ESRD-Ex group was compared with a contemporaneous cohort with ESRD undergoing ICD lead implantation (ESRD-I, n = 127). Among extraction patients, those with ESRD were more likely to be extracted for infection (74.4% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.001). Extraction procedure success (Control-Ex: 97% vs. ESRD-Ex: 93%, P = 0.17) and procedural deaths (Control-Ex: 1.1% vs. ESRD-Ex: 2.3%, P = 0.413) were similar. Survival 1 year following extraction was worse in the ESRD-Ex group compared with the Control-Ex, with a survival rate of 65.6% vs. 92.6% (P < 0.001); these curves continued to diverge through year 3. One-year survival in the ESRD-Ex group was worse than among ESRD patients undergoing ICD implant (ESRD-I), but these curves converged and survival was similar by year 3. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction can be performed safely and effectively in patients with ESRD. However, despite high rates of procedural success, long-term mortality following extraction in ESRD patients is substantial. Much of the long-term mortality risk appears to be accounted for by the presence of ESRD and an indication for an ICD.