Premium
Indications and Outcome of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators for Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis in Patients with Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy
Author(s) -
CALISKAN KADIR,
SZILITOROK TAMAS,
THEUNS DOMINIC A.M.J.,
KARDOS ATTILA,
GELEIJNSE MARCEL L.,
BALK AGGIE H.M.M.,
VAN DOMBURG RON T.,
JORDAENS LUC,
SIMOONS MAARTEN L.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2011.02015.x
Subject(s) - medicine , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , cardiomyopathy , cardiology , sudden cardiac death , ventricular tachycardia , heart failure , cohort , secondary prevention , primary prevention , prospective cohort study , disease
Prophylactic ICDs for Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy . Background: Noncompaction cardiomyopathy (NCCM) is a rare, primary cardiomyopathy, with initial presentation of heart failure, emboli, or arrhythmias, including sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) are frequently used for primary and secondary prevention in different cardiomyopathy patients, but data about ICD in NCCM are scarce. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate ICD indications and outcomes in NCCM patients. Methods and Results: We collected prospective data from our NCCM cohort (n = 77 pts, mean age: 40 ± 14 years). ICD was implanted in 44 (57%) patients with NCCM according to the current ICD guidelines for nonischemic cardiomyopathies: in 12 for secondary prevention (7 × ventricular fibrillation, 5 × sustained ventricular tachycardia [VT]) and in 32 patients for primary prevention (heart failure/severe LV dysfunction). During a mean follow‐up of 33 ± 24 months, 8 patients presented with appropriate ICD shocks due to sustained VT after median 6.1 [1–16] months. This included 4 of 32 (13%) patients in the primary prevention group and 4 of 12 (33%) in the secondary prevention group (P = 0.04). 9 patients presented with inappropriate ICD therapy: 6 (19%) in the primary and 3 (25%) in the secondary prevention group, at a median follow‐up of 4 (2–23) months. Conclusions: In our cohort of NCCM patients, an ICD was frequently implanted for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. At follow‐up, frequent appropriate ICD therapy was observed in both groups, supporting the application of current ICD guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in NCCM. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 898‐904, August 2011)