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.
RESULTS: We enrolled 4222 patients, and 3889 patients were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up period was 21.6 ± 10.2 months. There were 433 (11.1%) instances of all-cause mortality and 117 (3.0%) cases of SCD. All-cause mortality was highest in primary prevention (PP) patients from Southeast Asia and secondary prevention (SP) patients from the Middle East and Africa. The SCD rates among PP and SP patients were both highest in South Asia. Multivariate Cox regression modelling demonstrated that in addition to the independent predictors identified in previous studies, both geographic region and ICD use were associated with all-cause mortality in patients with high SCD risk. Primary prophylactic ICD implantation was associated with a 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.531-0.802, p
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.
METHODS: Primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) patients from countries where ICD use is low were enrolled. PP patients with additional risk factors (syncope, ejection fraction
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to address three of the most important challenges currently facing the athlete and primary care physician caring for athletes. The challenges are to recognise the potential risks to the athlete of sustaining a sudden cardiac arrest, sports-related concussion or doping violation in sport, as each of these have serious implications for life, wellbeing, performance and/or reputation. Education and risk mitigation are also essential components of care that will be addressed.
DISCUSSION: The primary care physician caring for athletes has a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate screening, education and ongoing surveillance to minimise the potentially serious risks facing those involved with physical activity.
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.
CONCLUSION: These data corroborate the mortality benefit of ICD therapy and support extension to a selected PP population from underrepresented geographies.
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.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01633398. Unique identifier: NCT01633398.