PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the mortality benefit in PP patients by guideline-indicated device type: ICD and CRT-D.

METHODS: Improve sudden cardiac arrest was a prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded multicenter trial that enrolled patients from regions where ICD utilization is low. PP patient's CRT-D or ICD eligibility was based upon the 2008 ACC/AHA/HRS and 2006 ESC guidelines. Mortality was assessed according to guideline-indicated device type comparing implanted and nonimplanted patients. Cox proportional hazards methods were used, adjusting for known factors affecting mortality risk.

METHODS: Patients who met the class I indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation according to guideline recommendations in 17 countries and regions underrepresented in previous trials were enrolled. Countries were stratified by the WHO regional classification. Patients were or were not implanted with an ICD at their discretion. The outcomes were all-cause mortality and SCD.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize reasons for ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant refusal by patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest (Improve SCA) in developing countries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report was to describe the longer-term (>12 months) envelope effects on infection reduction and complications.

METHODS: All trial patients who underwent CIED replacement, upgrade, revision, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy - defibrillator implantation received standard-of-care infection prophylaxis and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the envelope or not. CIED infection incidence and procedure and system-related complications were characterized through all follow-up (36 months) by using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling.

RESULTS: In total, 6800 patients received their intended randomized treatment (3371 envelope; 3429 control; mean follow-up period 21.0 ± 8.3 months). Major CIED-related infections occurred in 32 envelope patients and 51 control patients (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimate 1.3% vs 1.9%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.99; P = .046). Any CIED-related infection occurred in 57 envelope patients and 84 control patients (KM estimate 2.1% vs 2.8%; HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97; P = .030). System- or procedure-related complications occurred in 235 envelope patients and 252 control patients (KM estimate 8.0% vs 8.2%; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79-1.13; P < .001 for noninferiority); the most common were lead dislodgment (1.1%), device lead damage (0.5%), and implant site hematoma (0.4%). Implant site pain occurred less frequently in the envelope group (0.1% vs 0.4%; P = .067). There were no (0.0%) reports of allergic reactions to the components of the envelope (mesh, polymer, or antibiotics).

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study was to determine whether patients with primary prevention (PP) indications with specific risk factors (1.5PP: syncope, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, premature ventricular contractions >10/h, and low ventricular ejection fraction <25%) are at a similar risk of life-threatening arrhythmias as patients with secondary prevention (SP) indications and to evaluate all-cause mortality rates in 1.5PP patients with and without devices.

METHODS: A total of 3889 patients were included in the analysis to evaluate ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation therapy and mortality rates. Patients were stratified as SP (n = 1193) and patients with PP indications. The PP cohort was divided into 1.5PP patients (n = 1913) and those without any 1.5PP criteria (n = 783). The decision to undergo ICD implantation was left to the patient and/or physician. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios.

RESULTS: Patients had predominantly nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The rate of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in 1.5PP patients was not equivalent (within 30%) to that in patients with SP indications (hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.57) but was higher than that in PP patients without any 1.5PP criteria (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.97) (P = .03). There was a 49% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality in ICD implanted 1.5PP patients. In addition, the number needed to treat to save 1 life over 3 years was 10.0 in the 1.5PP cohort vs 40.0 in PP patients without any 1.5PP criteria.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, 5276 patients with symptomatic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 11 Asian regions and across 3 income regions (high: Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan; middle: China, Malaysia, and Thailand; and low: India, Indonesia, and Philippines) were studied. ICD utilization, clinical characteristics, as well as device perception and knowledge, were assessed at baseline among ICD-eligible patients (EF ≤35% and New York Heart Association Class II-III). Patients were followed for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Among 3240 ICD-eligible patients (mean age 58.9±12.9 years, 79.1% men), 389 (12%) were ICD recipients. Utilization varied across Asia (from 1.5% in Indonesia to 52.5% in Japan) with a trend toward greater uptake in regions with government reimbursement for ICDs and lower out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure. ICD (versus non-ICD) recipients were more likely to be older (63±11 versus 58±13 year; P<0.001), have tertiary (versus ≤primary) education (34.9% versus 18.1%; P<0.001) and be residing in a high (versus low) income region (64.5% versus 36.5%; P<0.001). Among 2000 ICD nonrecipients surveyed, 55% were either unaware of the benefits of, or needed more information on, device therapy. ICD implantation reduced risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.97) and sudden cardiac deaths (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.79) over a median follow-up of 417 days.

CONCLUSIONS: ICDs reduce mortality risk, yet utilization in Asia is low; with disparity across geographic regions and socioeconomic status. Better patient education and targeted healthcare reforms in extending ICD reimbursement may improve access.