Introduction: The DANISH trial raised doubts about the effectiveness of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death by ICD implantation among patients with non-ischemic heart failure. We sought to analyse data from the EVITA-HF registry to give an answer from real-world registry data to the DANISH trial.
Methods: 1804 patients were identified from the EVITA-HF registry with chronic heart failure (CHF) due to ischemic or dilated heart disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 35%. The patients were divided into two groups: Patients with newly implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD group; mean age 66 ± 12 years, 77% male) and without ICD (no-ICD group; mean age 66 ± 14 years, 77% male). The subgroups were compared with regard to mortality and predictive parameters affecting survival.
Results: Cardiovascular risk factors were similar among patients in the non-ICD group (n = 1473) compared to ICD group (n = 331). After 1-year follow-up patients with ischemic heart disease showed a significant improved survival in the ICD group compared to non-ICD group [92.1% vs. 80.6%, HR 0.37 (0.22-0.62)]. Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy did not show a difference with regard to survival between the ICD and the non-ICD group [93.7% vs. 93.1%, HR 0.92 (0.43-1.97)]. The data were stable in a Cox-regression model.
Conclusion: In a real-world setting, no benefit was evident for patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction by adding ICD therapy in a short-term follow-up of 12 months in contrast to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Keywords: Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator; Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; Primary prevention; Sudden cardiac death.