jump to navigation

Research at NYU Medical Center – Simply the Best. November 16, 2006

Posted by rajkmd in Cardiology.
add a comment

From our very own Dr. Judith Hochman….

Apparently, PCI three days after an MI doesn’t save lives.

Endarterectomy versus Stenting in Patients with with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (NEJM, October 19, 2006) November 2, 2006

Posted by rajkmd in Cardiology, Surgery.
3 comments

Background

  • Carotid enderarterectomy has been found to be beneficial for individuals with severe carotid stenosis
    • The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) showed that for patients with severe carotid stenosis defined as a stenosis greater than 70 percent, the number needed to treat in order to save one life over a period of 2 years was six.
  • Noninvasive methods of opening a carotid stenosis through stents have been previously studied, but have not been shown to benefit patients.
  • This randomized controlled trial was conducted to study whether stenting is not inferior to endarterectomy with regard to the risks of the procedure and its long term efficacy.
  • Enrollment began in 2000, but the safety committee recommended it be stopped in September 2005 

Methods

  • The study was completed in 20 academic and 10 nonacademic centers in France
    • Each center was required to have one neurologist, one vascular surgeon, and one interventionalist in order to join.
  • Inclusion criteria
    • at least 18 years of age or older
    • had a hemispheric or retinal transient ischemic attack or a nondisabling stroke (or retinal infarct) within 120 days of enrollment
    • Stenosis of 60 to 99 percent in the sympotmatic  carotid artery as determined by the NASCET method
      • This was changed in October 2003 because endarterectomy was shown to benefit symptomatic patients with moderate stenosis
      • Stenosis was determined by catheter aniography or by both duplex ultrasound and MRA of the carotid artery
  • Exclusion
    • Patinets were excluded if they moderate to severe diability from a stroke, nonathersclerotic carotid disease, severe tandem lesions, previous revascularization of a severe stenosis, h/o of bleeding d/o, uncontrlled HTN or DM, contraindications to heparin or clopidgrel, life expectancy  less than 2years, PCI or surgery within 30 days.
  • Patients were randomized by the degree of stenosis defined as >90 or <90 percent.
  • Primary endpt. was a composite of any stroke or death occuring within 30 days of treatment
  • Secondary endpts.  were myocardial infarction, TIA, cranial nerve injury, major local complications and systemic complications within 30 days after treatment, and composites of any of the following – stroke or death within 30 days after treatment + any stroke from day 31 after treatment to the end of the followup.
  • 872 patients needed to be enrolled to have a statistical power of 80 percent to assess whether stenting was not inferior to endarterectomy. 

Results

  • 527 pts were ulitmately enrolled.
  • There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of the two study arms.
  • The study found that stenting carried a greater risk than did endarterectomy
    • 30 day incidence  of any stroke or death was 3.9 % (95% CI, 2 to 7.2) after endarterectomy  and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.4 to 14) after stenting, with an absolute risk increase of 5.7.
    • This means that an add’l stroke or death resulted when 17 patients underwent stented rather than endarterectomy.
    • 30 day incidence of disabling stroke or death was 1.5% (95% CI, o.5 to 4.2) after endarterectomy vs 3.4% (96% CI, 1.7 to 6.7)
    • A greater percentage of strokes occured on the day of the procedure in the stenting grp.
  • The incidence of stroke or death did not vary based on whether the interventionalist was experienced or was being tutored during or after training
  • Patients had stents placed with cerebral protection devices had a lower incidence of stroke, but endarterectomy was safer even after taking this into account.
  • Hospital stay was shorter in the stenting group vs endarterectomy grp (3 days vs 4 days p 0.01)
  • 30 day incidence of stroke or death in the stent group did not depend on whether patients were on antiplatelet therapy or not. 

Discussion

  • The trial was stopped early for reasons of both safety and futility 
  • In this study, the 30-day risk of stroke or death was significantly higher in the group that underwent carotid artery stenting.
  • The differences are unlikely explained by the selection of sugeons with high level expertise and is most likely the a difference between the the therapeutic options.
  • The differences persisted at 6 months, but long term follow up data has yet to be compiled

THE BOTTOM LINE – In patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 60 percent or more,  carotid artery stenting carries a higher risk of developing a stroke or dying at 30 days and 6 months when compared to carotid endarterectomy. 

Dr. Micheal LoCurcio on the CARP trial. October 25, 2006

Posted by rajkmd in Cardiology, Surgery.
2 comments

In the comments section regarding this article

Excellent review. I wanted to point out that the primary outcome for the study was long term mortality but that this data is actually buried within the text. The information you listed was from table 3 (which is presented as if it was the primary endpoint) but is actually the postoperative events at 30 days. The primary endpoint is actually 70 (22%) deaths in the revascularization group and 67 (23%) deaths in the no revascularization group at a median of 2.7 years (95% CI p=0.7-1.37). -Mike LoCurcio  

Thanks for the tip.  I’ll change the summary to reflect this.

Coronary-Artery Revascularization before Elective Vascular Surgery: The CARP trial (NEJM 2003:351;27) October 24, 2006

Posted by rajkmd in Cardiology, Surgery.
4 comments

to read the actual article click here

Background

  • Patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) have a high prevalence of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD), which leads to a high incidence of perioperative cardiac complications during vascular surgery.
  • This is the first randomized trial to study the effect of coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery
  • Previous investigations into the topic have yielded mixed results
    • The cohort study, The Coronary Artery Surgery Study with peripheral vascular disease. followed patients for 3.5 years and showed improved outcomes in the group receiving revascularization as compared to the group receiving conservative therapy.
    • On the other hand, studies using large registries of patients have shown no benefit and potential harm patients by causing complications and delays of the needed vascular surgeries.
  • The study was funded by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Research and Development.

Methods

  • Inclusion criteria- patients scheduled for an elective vascular operation for either an expanded abdominal aortic aneurysm or severe symptoms associated with PVD in the legs.
  • Exclusion criteria
    • Need for urgent or emergency surgery
    • Severe coexisting illness
    • Prior revascularization without evidence of recurrent ischemia
    • Left main stenosis 50 percent or greater
    • Left ventricle ejection fraction less than 20 percent
    • Severe aortic stenosis
  • Coronary angiography was recommended if the consulting cardiologist deemed the patient at increased risk of perioperative cardiac complications.
    • Risk was determined by a combination of factors including the presence or absence of ischemia in noninvasive stress testing as well as independent risk factors of CAD, such as prior stroke, insulin-dependent diabetes, and renal failure.
  • Based on the angiogram, patients received revascularization if the patients had a stenosis of at least 70 percent and could tolerate a revascularization procedure
    • The decision to undergo percutaneos coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass (CABG) was left up to the local investigators
  • After randomization, either the cardiac or vascular procedure was expected to be performed within three weeks
    • Patients undergoing a CABG waited three months beore recieving their vascular procedure
    • Patients undergoing PCI waited two weeks for their vascular procedure to be completed due to increase risk of instent thrombosis
  • Three days after vascular surgery was performed cardiac enzymes were monitored and ekgs were obtained.  Three months after vascular surgery, LVEF was determined using radionuclide angiography.
  • Primary end point: long term mortality
  • Secondary end point: myocardial infarction, stroke, limb loss, and dialysis.
  • Patients were followed for approximately five years and the study was powered to detect difference in the 3.5 year survival rate of at least 75 percent of the two arms of the study.
  • This was an intention to treat analysis

Results

  • 5859 patients were initally screened and of these, 510 patients were eventually enrolled
    • Of the 510 patients who underwent randomization, 258 were assigned to a strategy of preoperative coronary artery revascularization and 252 underwent no preoperative revascularization.
  • No significant differences in the baseline characteristics.
  • Of the 258 in the coronary artery revascularization arm, 240 (93 percent) actually underwent revascularization
    • 41 percent underwent CABG
    • 59 percent underwent PCI
    • Patients undergoing had a higher number of vessels revascularized (3 vs 1.3), higher death rates (2 vs 1.4), and longer stays in the hospital (7 vs 1 day)
    • 87 percent of the patients eventually underwent vascular surgery
      • Vascular surgery occured  a median 48 days after CABG and median 41 days after PCI
  • Before vascular surgery, there were more deaths in the coronary-artery revascularization group  than the conservatively managed patients ( 10 deaths vs 1 death)
  • There was no mention in the stude regarding the number of perioperative myocardial infarctions during vascular surgery.
  • Primary endpt –> at a median of 2.7 years after randomization, mortality was 22 percent in the revascularization grp and 23 percent in the no revascularization grp (relative risk, 0.98; 95 percent CI, 0.70 to 1.37)
  • At thirty days, there was not a significant difference in death rates in the two groups (3.1 vs 3.4 percent, p=0.87)
  • Secondary endpt –> there was also not a significant difference between the coronary artery revascularization arm versus the conservative management arm in terms of the 
    • the rate of myocardial infarction, either using cardiac enzymes (11.6 vs 14.3 p=0.37) or cardiac enzymes with ECG (8.4 vs 8.4, p=0.99)
    • the rate of stroke (0.4 vs 0.8, p=0.59)
    • the percentage of patients losing of a leg (0.4 vs 0.8, p=0.11)
    • the percentage of patients requirine renal dialysis (0.4 vs 0.4, p=0.97)

Discussion

  • The authors of this study conclude that, “Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery does not improve long term survival”.
  • There was no reduction in death, myocardial infarction, or length of stay after vascular surgery in either group.
  • This is in line with the current recommendations of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Physicians, which only recommend coronary artery revascularization of patients with unstable cardiac symptoms or advances coronary disease that have been proven to have benefit irrespective of future surgery.

THE BOTTOM LINE:  In patients with stable coronary artery disease, preoperative coronary-artery revascularization before non-emergent vascular surgery does not improve the rate of death, decrease the number of postoperative myocardial infarctions or stroke,  decrease the percentage of patients losing a leg, or decrease the need for renal dialysis.

Banning Transfatty Acids – A Case Study October 17, 2006

Posted by rajkmd in Cardiology.
2 comments

The debate on whether to ban tranfats in New York City is heating up.  Here what happened in Denmark after a two year ban…

Denmark an Example After Transfat Ban

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Two years ago Denmark declared war on killer fat, making it illegal for any food to have more than 2 percent transfats. Offenders now face hefty fines _ or even prison terms. The result? Today hardly anyone notices the difference.

The french fries are still crispy. The pastries are still scrumptious. And the fried chicken is still tasty. (…)

Producers also argue that removing transfat from processed food will change certain tastes and textures beloved by consumers.

But they have been called the tobacco of the nutrition world. They lower good cholesterol while raising bad cholesterol.

Even consuming less than five grams of transfat _ the amount found in one piece of fried chicken and a side of french fries _ a day has been linked with a 25 percent increased risk of heart disease.

“No other fat at these low levels of intake, has such harmful effects,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

Although the Danish health ministry reports that cardiovascular disease has dropped by 20 percent in the last five years, similar reductions have been reported in other countries that are making an effort to combat heart disease by measures such as regulating the food and tobacco industries, and by educating the public about the need to exercise. In countries that are making no effort to regulate the amount of transfat in food, such as Hungary and Bulgaria, heart disease rates have continued to climb.

Banning the transfats, though, might be bad for cardiologist.  Maybe, we should reconsider…

In response to Dr. Orna Kleiman’s questions September 14, 2006

Posted by healthweb in Cardiology, Uncategorized.
3 comments

In the comments section….

Can you comment on the other endpoints, ie: did the treatment group also have a significant reduction in LV wall thickness or EF that would go along with the proposed mechanism of the drugs in question reducing myocardial hypertrophy and remodeling? second, just to confirm, all these people were still on beta blocker, ace, +/- arb, and even spironolactone, all the while they were on hydral+nitrate, right? kinda expensive and a tough regimen to maintain as an outpatient…

In the study, Combination of Isosorbide Dinitrate and Hydralazine in Blacks with Heart Failure (NEJM, Nov. 11, 2004), despite listing change in LV ejection fraction and LV wall thickness as secondary endpts at six months, the study does not report these results in the text or any of its tables. 

To be involved in the study patients had to be receiving standard therapy as determined by their physician including beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, diuretics, digoxin, ARBs, and spironolactone.  In fact, an interesting aspect of this trial is that almost 70% of patients in both placebo and experimental arms were on ACE inhibitors and more than 70% of patients were on beta blockers.

To apply the findings of the study, then, pt should be maximized on standard therapy before being started on the combination of isosorbide and hydralizine

Combination of Isosorbide Dinitrate and Hydralazine in Blacks with Heart Failure (NEJM, Nov. 11, 2004) September 6, 2006

Posted by healthweb in Cardiology, Uncategorized.
4 comments

by Raj Khandwalla

The Big Picture

  • An estimated 4.9 million Americans are being treated with heart failure with 550,000 new cases diagnosed each year
  • The prevelence increased with age affecting 1-2 percent of persons age 45 to 54 years and up to 10 percent of indiviudals older than 75 yo
  • Heart failure is the leading discharge diagnosis in persons 65 years or older with average length of stay around 5.3 days .
  • $3.5 billion dollars was spent on Medicare beneficiares for the in-hospital management of heart failure
  • The cost of hospitilizations for heart failure is twice that for all forms of cancer and myocardial infarction combined
  • This study was funded by the company NitroMed
    • Between July, 2004 and November, 2004 (the month this study was published ), NitroMed’s stock increased from $5.9 per share to $25.8 per share – an increase of more than 400%.  Currently, the stock is $2.84 per share with a market capitilization of $500 million.

Background

  • Neurohormonal inhitibors, such as beta blockers and ACE inhibitors, have been shown to reduce the rates of death and complications associated with heart failure
  • Increasing nitric oxide levels in the heart may help slow or reverese the progression of heart disease
  • Vasodilator Heart Failure Trial demonstrated benefit of combining nitric oxide donor, isosorbide dinitrate and hydralizine in patients with mild to severe heart failure
  • Studies have shown that persons who identify themselves as black on average have a less active renin angiotensin system and lower levels of bioavailability compared to self identified whites

Methods

  • A randomized, placebo controlled, double blinded trial
  • Study was sponsered by NitroMed
  • Inclusion criteria
    • pts 18 yo or older, self described as black (defined as of African descent)
    • pts NYHA class III or IV heart failure for at least three months were eligible
    • pts required to have receiving standard therapy for heart failure as determined appropriate by their physicians
      • such therapy included ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, spironolactone, digoxin, and diuretics for at least three months before randomization
    • Pt’s also had evidence of LV dysfunction within six months preceding randomization as defined by echo
  • Excluson criteria
    • acute MI, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke within the preceding three months
    • cardiac surgery or PCI within the preceding three months or the likelihood of a requirement of such a procedure within the study period
    • presence of sig valvular dysfunction
    • presence of hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy
    • uncontrolled hypertension
    • requiring inotropes or potential need for cardiac transplantation.

Randomization Procedure

  • Initial dose was one tablet containing either placebo alone or hydralazine 37.5 mg 3xdaily combined with isorsobide 20 mg 3 x daily
  • The dose was increased to two tablets three times daily for a total daily dose of 225 mg of hydralzine and 120 mg of isosorbide
  • Pts were followed for 18 m with assessment of LV EF, LV internal diastolic dimension, LV wall thickness, and level of BNP at 6 months. Quality assessments were completed every 6 months

Outcome Measures

  • The primary efficacy end pt was a composite score outlined below
    • Death (at any time of trial)                       -3
    • Survival to end of the trial                          0
    • First hospitilization for heart failure            -1
      • Change in quality of life at 6 mo (as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionaire)
        • Improvement by >10 units              +2
        • Imoprovement by 5-9 units             +1
        • Change by <5 units                           0
        • Worsening by 5-9                            -1
        • Worsening by >10                           -2
  • Secondary end points
    • included individual components of aggregate score
    • death from cardiac causes
    • total number of hospitilizations for heart failure
    • total number of hospitilization of any cause
    • total number of days of hospitilization 
    • overall quality of life
    • change in BNP
    • change in EF
    • need for cardiac transplantation

Results

  • This trial was stopped owing to a significantly higher motrality rate in the placebo group compared to the isorsorbide and hydralazine
  • At the time the trial was halted 54 pts had died in the placebo (10.2 percent) and 32 patients had died in the combination therapy group
  • Baseline Characteristics – the significant differences
    • combination pill group was less likely to be male 55.8% vs 63.9%  
    • combination pill group was more likely to have diabetes 44.8% vs 37%
    •  combination pill group had increased diatolic pressure and slightly better Minnesota Living Scale

Discussion

  • 43 percent reduction in the mortality rate in the group given combination pill
  • An absolute reduction of mortality of 4% and a number needed to treat of 25 patients for every life saved
  • Adverse effects
    • the placebo group had significantly higher rates of CHF exacerbations
    • the combination pill group had significantly higher rates of headache and dizziness
  • All of these pts were on optimal medical therapy and the benefit may may be consistent with the existence of an alternative mechanism of controlling heart failure
  • Isorsobide dinitrate is a nitric oxide donor and hydralazine confers protection against the degradation of nitric oxide
  • Proposed mechanisms
    • nitric oxide regulates cardiovascular processes including myocardial hypertrophy and remodeling as well as helping endothelial dysfxn

CARVEDILOL – A Review August 21, 2006

Posted by healthweb in Cardiology.
add a comment

Frishman, William, “Carvedilol,” New England Journal of Medicine, V 339, No 24, December 10, 1998, p. 1759-1765 

BACKGROUND 

  • Beta antagonist with alpha 1 antagonist activity
  • Approved for HTN in Sept 1995
  • Patent will expire in 2006
  • Currently, GlaxoSmithKline is developing an extended release version that is in Phase III clinical trials
  • The first adrenoreceptor locking drug to receive approval specifically for heart failure 

PHARMACODYNAMIC PROPERTIES                                       

  • Racemic lipophilic aryloxypropanolamine                                                                                         
  • Causes precapillary vasodilation by means of alpha 1 blockade and nonselective beta blockade
  • No sympathomimetic activity
  • Carvedilol has two to four times beta antagonist activity when compared to propanolol
  • The ratio of alpha:beta activity is 1:10compared to 1:4 for labetolol
  • In vitro, the drug has antioxidant activity the significance of is unknown

Kinetics

  • Rapidly absorbed after oral administration

  • On an empty stomach peak plasma concentrations are achieved in one to two hours

  • Absorption can be delayed in additional 60 to 135 minutes if the drug is administered with food.

  • Goes through stereoselective first pass hepatic metabolism

  • Ninety eight percent of the drug is bound to albumin

  • Cleared by the liver Conjugated to glucuronide and excreted in the bile

  • Only 16% is excreted by the urine

  • Metabolism is affected by the P450 system

  • Drugs that inhibit the system may lead to increase concentration such as quinidine, paroxetine, fluoxetene, propefenone

  • Interestingly, the S racemere is only slightly affected by the P450 system

  • Clearance is delayed in pats over 50 yo

  • Pt’s with liver disease have high plasma levels, but the half life remains unchanged

  • Pharmacokinetics are not altered in pts undergoing hemodialysis

  • HCTZ does not influence the kinetics of carvedilol

  • Pt’s with class IV HF may have higher plasma concentrations, but there is considerable overlap between the two.

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS 

  • The US Carvedilol Heart Failure Program was made up four coordinated studies of a total of 1094 pts with aLVEF < 35 %NYHA class II,III,IV sx
  • Must be able to walk for six minutes
  • On conventional therapy, pt ’s needed to be able to tolerate carvedilol therapy
  • No hospitalization or change in HF failure medications the month previous to enrolling in the study
  • The studies lasted 6 to 12 months
  • The study tested the ability of subjects to complete a six minute walk test
  • At baseline the pts needed a HR 68 SBP of 85
  • And needed to be able to complete the six minute walk test
  • Pt’s were enrolled in one of the four studies based on how far they could walk
  • Results – There was a 48 percent reduction in the progression of HF, defined as death or hospitalization or as sustained increase in HF medication
  • Exercise tolerance was unchanged
  • Quality of life was also unchanged
  • Mortality was initially not a preplanned primary end pt., but the study was terminated 65 percent reduction in mortality (3.2 vs 7.8)
  • 68 percent reduction in mortality in pts with Class II HF
  • 65 percent reduction in pts with Class III HF
  • Reduction in mortality was similar in pts with ischemic vs nonischemic HF
  • Based on these results the study was terminated in February 95 based on the recommendation of the data and safety board
  • Caveats – reductions in total mortality included some trials which did not show a significant benefit in treatment
  • No known benefit on pts with diastolic dysfunction
  • Unknown if the drugs effects can be generalized to other alpha1, beta antagonists
  • Based on this study and others including one in Australia and New Zealand, the FDA approved the use of carvedilol in HF
  • Use for treatment for HTN
  • Comparable to other antihypertensives including other beta blockers, diuretics, ACEi, CCB
  • Reduced symptoms of chronic stable angina similar to other beta blockers 

CLINICAL USE IN HEART FAILURE 

  • Before initiating therapy the dose of ACEi and diuretics should be stabilized
  • The recommended starting dose 3.125 BID for two weeks
  • If this dose is tolerated then the dose can be doubled at a minimum of every two weeks to the maximal dose 25 bid for pts that <85 kg and 50 bid for pts>85 kg
  • Usually costs about $130/month at Walgreens
  • Before increasing the dose pt should be evaluated for sx of worsening HF
  • Fluid retention or increased dyspnea can be treated with increased diuretics
  • Dizziness or hypotension responds to a reduction in the dose of the ACEi

Contraindications

  • Decompensated HF
  • Bradycardia
  • Sick sinus syndrome
  • Partial or complete AV block
  • Relative contraindication to asthmatics
  • Should be used cautiously in pt’s with DM, because it can mask symptoms of hypoglycemia 

SIDE EFFECTS 

  • Five percent discontinued the use of the drug because of worsening HF, dizziness, bradycardia
  • Decreased renal fxn is a rare side efx
  • One percent of pt’s had mild hepatocellular injury, the drug should be discontinued in pt’s with abn LFTs as a result of starting the drug

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Congestive Heart Failure August 20, 2006

Posted by healthweb in Cardiology.
7 comments

by Vandana Khungur

Background

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) can occur in patients with CHF despite optimal medical therapy.

Patients with NYHA Class IV heart failure who are not candidates for cardiac transplantation are often excluded from studies such as SCD HeFT due to their high mortality from progressive pump failure.

There have been many more trials looking at primary prevention of SCD in ischemic than in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

The national coverage determination (NCD) by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for reimbursement of ICD therapy impacts patient selection in the US.

Briefly, and relevant to the article at hand, Medicare covers ICDs for pts with ischemic and non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (if non-ischemic, >9 mos), NYHA Class II or III heart failure, and measured LVEF

  1. Pts must not have cardiogenic shock or symptomatic hypotension while in a stable baseline rhythm
  2. Pt must not have had a CABG or PTCA within the past 3 months
  3. Pt cannot have had an MI within 40 days prior to ICD insertion
  4. Pts may not have clinical symptoms or findings that would make them a candidate for coronary revascularization
  5. Pts may not have any disease, other than cardiac disease (e.g., cancer, uremia, liver failure), associated with a likelihood of survival less than 1 year.

Ischemic cardiomyopathy trials


Pts who have had an acute MI are at increased risk for SCD, usually due to a tachyarrhythmia.

MADIT I – Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial

1st trial to demonstrate that ICDs can be used for primary prevention of SCD in high risk, asymptomatic pts
196 pts with prior MI, NSVT on monitoring, LVEF
At 27 month follow-up, findings were significant reductions in the incidence of overall mortality, cardiac mortality, and arrhythmic deaths in pts treated with ICDs. Subset analysis showed benefit only in high-risk pts with more severe heart disease (EF 0.12 sec). Benefit increased progressively with more risk factors.
ICD was compared to amiodarone without a control of no antiarrhythmic.

Based upon the results of MADIT I, the FDA approved the prophylactic use of the ICD in pts with the following:

  1. Sustained VT induced by EPS and not prevented with IV procainamide
  2. Ischemic heart disease
  3. Prior MI
  4. NSVT
  5. Reduced LVEF (

MADIT II Trial
1232 pts with MI more than 30 days prior to enrollment (and more than 3 months if bypass surgery was performed) and LVEF

Pts were randomly assigned to a prophylactic ICD or conventional medical therapy.
The study was prematurely terminated at an average f/u of 20 months because the ICD reduced all-cause mortality (14.2 vs 19.8 % for conventional therapy, HR 0.65 (0.51-0.93). This survival benefit was entirely due to a reduction in sudden death and was present in all subgroups analyzed.
An unexpected finding was a higher rate of hospitalization for HF in the ICD group (20 vs 15%), possibly due to longer life spans in the ICD group due to prevention of SCD.

Another possible explanation for the increased hospitalization for HF is the development of myocardial injury and decreased LVEF after multiple ICD shocks.

CABG Patch Trial
This trial evaluated the efficacy of an epicardial ICD implanted at the time of CABG for reducing mortality in pts undergoing surgical revascularization for severe CHD who had LVEF

900 pts, no history of sustained VT or syncope. Average f/u of 32 months. 101 deaths in the ICD group (71 cardiac) and 95 in the control group (72 cardiac). HR of 1.07 was not statistically significant.

Prophylactic therapy with ICD did reduce arrhythmic death by 45%, but 71% of the deaths in the trial were nonarrhythmic, so this reduction in arrhythmic death did not impact upon total mortality.

ICD therapy potentially did not reduce mortality because coronary revascularization itself has a beneficial effect in preventing sudden death.

This trial is the main reason why current guidelines recommend against ICD implantation for pts who have recently undergone coronary revascularization.

MUSTT trial

704 pts with a prior MI (
2 year and 5 year rates for the primary end point were significantly lower for EPS guided therapy compared to no therapy, largely attributable to ICD therapy.

DINAMIT trial

Evaluated the role of prophylactic ICD implantation compared to no ICD in 674 pts with an MI within the preceding 6 to 40 days (unlike MADIT and MUSTT, which enrolled pts at least 3 weeks post MI).

LVEF 80 beats/min).

Exclusion criteria included sustained VT >48 hrs post-MI, NYHA class IV HF, or CABG or three vessel PCI post-MI.

No difference in annual all-cause mortality between ICD and control.

Arrhythmic deaths were more frequent in the control arm, nonarrhythmic deaths were more freqent in the ICD arm.

Potential reasons for less of an effect in this trial than in MADIT and MUSTT include that some SCDs in the early postinfarction period are due to recurrent ischemia, which is not completely treated by ICD discharge or ICD implantation may be riskier in pt immediately post MI.

This trial is the main reason that current guidelines recommend that ICD implantation should be deferred until at least 40 days post MI.

Nonischemic cardiomyopathy trials
Ventricular arrhythmias are common in HF pts with a nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CAT and AMIOVIRT
Neither trial showed survival benefit of prophylactic ICD insertion compared to placebo or amiodarone.

CAT or Cardiomyopathy Trial, randomly assigned 104 pts with recent onset (

AMIOVIRT trial compared an ICD, sometimes with amiodarone, to amiodarone alone in 103 pts with moderate to severe nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with class I to III heart failure, LVEF

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the amiodarone and ICD groups at one year or three years.

Both trials were very small, AMIOVIRT did not have a placebo group and both had unexpectedly low mortality rates.

DEFINITE
458 pts enrolled, all received standard medical therapy, including an ACE and beta blocker in most instances.
Almost significant trend toward a reduction in the primary end point of all-cause mortality with an ICD (7.9 vs 14.1%, HR 0.65 (0.4-1.06). In the subset of NYHA Class III pts the difference was significant.

The trial was underpowered and may have shown a significant difference with more study subjects.

Cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation

Cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD is difficult to determine because there are several variables that enter the equation. The cost of device implantation, cost of generator change, projected life expectancy, and mortality rate, as well as efficacy of ICD therapy all matter. Quality of life adjustments are also factored in. A study entitled “ Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators” Sanders et al., NEJM 20005; 353:1471, estimated cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation. Use of an ICD was projected to add one to three quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a cost per quality-adjusted year of life saved from $34,900 in MADIT to $70,200 in SCD-HeFT. These costs all fall within the range of $50,000 to $100,000 per QALY gained that is considered to be acceptable in the US.