Efficacy and safety of ICD therapy in a population of elderly patients treated with optimal background medication

G. Duray, Sergio Richter, Johannes Manegold, Carsten W. Israel, Gerian Grönefeld, Stefan H. Hohnloser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with structural heart disease and at high risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whether elderly patients benefit from device therapy in a similar way as younger patients is largely unknown. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive ICD recipients with structural heart disease. Patients were divided into two groups, younger than 70 years at time of ICD implantation (group 1) or 70 years or older (group 2). Main outcome measures were time to death from any cause and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death. Results: Group 1 and 2 patients were comparable with respect to clinical presentation and average follow-up duration. In the elderly patient group, 78% received an ICD for secondary prevention versus 63% in group 1 (p = 0.007). During a mean follow-up period of 26.5 ± 18.1 months, there was no significant difference in overall mortality among the two groups: 47 patients died, 34 (12.5%) of group 1 versus 13 (12.7%) of group 2. The average time to death was 28.4 ± 16.7 vs 30.4 ± 22.1 months after device implantation, respectively (p = ns). There was no difference in time from device implantation to first adequate ICD therapy and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death among the two groups (p = ns). Device associated complications were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Elderly ICD recipients had comparable survival rates and appropriate use of the ICD compared to younger individuals.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)169-173
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2005

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Safety
Population
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics
Heart Diseases
Secondary Prevention
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Cause of Death
Survival Rate
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Survival
Mortality

Keywords

  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Structural heart disease
  • Sudden cardiac death

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Efficacy and safety of ICD therapy in a population of elderly patients treated with optimal background medication. / Duray, G.; Richter, Sergio; Manegold, Johannes; Israel, Carsten W.; Grönefeld, Gerian; Hohnloser, Stefan H.

In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 12.2005, p. 169-173.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Duray, G. ; Richter, Sergio ; Manegold, Johannes ; Israel, Carsten W. ; Grönefeld, Gerian ; Hohnloser, Stefan H. / Efficacy and safety of ICD therapy in a population of elderly patients treated with optimal background medication. In: Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2005 ; Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 169-173.
@article{22d415deb34b4964921f61952822e0ca,
title = "Efficacy and safety of ICD therapy in a population of elderly patients treated with optimal background medication",
abstract = "Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with structural heart disease and at high risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whether elderly patients benefit from device therapy in a similar way as younger patients is largely unknown. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive ICD recipients with structural heart disease. Patients were divided into two groups, younger than 70 years at time of ICD implantation (group 1) or 70 years or older (group 2). Main outcome measures were time to death from any cause and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death. Results: Group 1 and 2 patients were comparable with respect to clinical presentation and average follow-up duration. In the elderly patient group, 78{\%} received an ICD for secondary prevention versus 63{\%} in group 1 (p = 0.007). During a mean follow-up period of 26.5 ± 18.1 months, there was no significant difference in overall mortality among the two groups: 47 patients died, 34 (12.5{\%}) of group 1 versus 13 (12.7{\%}) of group 2. The average time to death was 28.4 ± 16.7 vs 30.4 ± 22.1 months after device implantation, respectively (p = ns). There was no difference in time from device implantation to first adequate ICD therapy and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death among the two groups (p = ns). Device associated complications were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Elderly ICD recipients had comparable survival rates and appropriate use of the ICD compared to younger individuals.",
keywords = "Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Structural heart disease, Sudden cardiac death",
author = "G. Duray and Sergio Richter and Johannes Manegold and Israel, {Carsten W.} and Gerian Gr{\"o}nefeld and Hohnloser, {Stefan H.}",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s10840-006-5200-y",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "169--173",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology",
issn = "1383-875X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy and safety of ICD therapy in a population of elderly patients treated with optimal background medication

AU - Duray, G.

AU - Richter, Sergio

AU - Manegold, Johannes

AU - Israel, Carsten W.

AU - Grönefeld, Gerian

AU - Hohnloser, Stefan H.

PY - 2005/12

Y1 - 2005/12

N2 - Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with structural heart disease and at high risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whether elderly patients benefit from device therapy in a similar way as younger patients is largely unknown. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive ICD recipients with structural heart disease. Patients were divided into two groups, younger than 70 years at time of ICD implantation (group 1) or 70 years or older (group 2). Main outcome measures were time to death from any cause and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death. Results: Group 1 and 2 patients were comparable with respect to clinical presentation and average follow-up duration. In the elderly patient group, 78% received an ICD for secondary prevention versus 63% in group 1 (p = 0.007). During a mean follow-up period of 26.5 ± 18.1 months, there was no significant difference in overall mortality among the two groups: 47 patients died, 34 (12.5%) of group 1 versus 13 (12.7%) of group 2. The average time to death was 28.4 ± 16.7 vs 30.4 ± 22.1 months after device implantation, respectively (p = ns). There was no difference in time from device implantation to first adequate ICD therapy and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death among the two groups (p = ns). Device associated complications were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Elderly ICD recipients had comparable survival rates and appropriate use of the ICD compared to younger individuals.

AB - Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with structural heart disease and at high risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whether elderly patients benefit from device therapy in a similar way as younger patients is largely unknown. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive ICD recipients with structural heart disease. Patients were divided into two groups, younger than 70 years at time of ICD implantation (group 1) or 70 years or older (group 2). Main outcome measures were time to death from any cause and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death. Results: Group 1 and 2 patients were comparable with respect to clinical presentation and average follow-up duration. In the elderly patient group, 78% received an ICD for secondary prevention versus 63% in group 1 (p = 0.007). During a mean follow-up period of 26.5 ± 18.1 months, there was no significant difference in overall mortality among the two groups: 47 patients died, 34 (12.5%) of group 1 versus 13 (12.7%) of group 2. The average time to death was 28.4 ± 16.7 vs 30.4 ± 22.1 months after device implantation, respectively (p = ns). There was no difference in time from device implantation to first adequate ICD therapy and time from first appropriate ICD therapy to death among the two groups (p = ns). Device associated complications were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Elderly ICD recipients had comparable survival rates and appropriate use of the ICD compared to younger individuals.

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - Structural heart disease

KW - Sudden cardiac death

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31144473359&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31144473359&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10840-006-5200-y

DO - 10.1007/s10840-006-5200-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 16421693

AN - SCOPUS:31144473359

VL - 14

SP - 169

EP - 173

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

SN - 1383-875X

IS - 3

ER -