Comparison of second appropriate defibrillator therapy occurrence in patients implanted for primary prevention and secondary prevention - Sub-analysis of the Nippon Storm Study.

Abstract

BackgroundPatients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use for primary prevention (primary prevention patients) of sudden cardiac death have lower incidence of appropriate ICD therapy (app-Tx) compared with those with ICD use for secondary prevention (secondary prevention patients). However, detail analysis of a second app-Tx after a first app-Tx is still lacking.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the incidence of a second app-Tx in primary vs secondary prevention patients.MethodsWe conducted sub-analysis of the Nippon Storm Study, which was a prospective, observational study involving 985 patients with structural heart disease (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 50%). Of these, we selected 251 patients (62 ± 14 years old, 82% men) who experienced at least one appropriate ICD therapy, and compared occurrence of a second app-Tx between primary (n = 116) and secondary (n = 135) prevention patients.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the incidence of a second app-Tx between primary and secondary prevention patients (the cumulative incidence for a second app-Tx was 59% at 1 year and 79% at 3 years in primary prevention patients vs the cumulative incidence for the second app-Tx was 59% at 1 year and 75% at 3 years in secondary prevention patients).Additionally, we evaluated the incidence of a second app-Tx according to basal structural disease (ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy) and found no significant difference between primary and secondary prevention patients.ConclusionOnce app-Tx occurs, primary prevention patients acquire the high risk of subsequent ventricular arrhythmias because there is a comparable incidence of a second app-Tx in secondary prevention patients.