Heart Rhythm O2. 2024 Apr 27;5(6):365-373. doi: 10.1016/j.hroo.2024.04.010. eCollection 2024 Jun.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in the elderly.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation in patients 70 years and older.
METHODS: Patients (n = 167) aged 70 years or older and eligible for ICD implantation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either optimal medical therapy (OMT) (n = 85) or OMT plus ICD (n = 82).
RESULTS: Of the 167 participants (mean age 76.4 years; 165 men), 144 completed the study protocol according to their assigned treatment. Average participant follow-up was 31.5 months. Mortality was similar between the 2 groups: 27 deaths in OMT vs 26 death in ICD (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.57), but there was a trend favoring the ICD over the first 36 months of follow-up. Rates of sudden death (7 vs 5; P = .81) and all-cause hospitalization (2.65 events per participant in OMT vs 3.09 in ICD; P = .31) were not statistically significantly different. Eleven participants randomized to ICD received appropriate therapy. Five participants received an inappropriate therapy that included at least 1 ICD shock.
CONCLUSION: The study did not recruit to target sample size, and accumulated data did not show benefit of ICD therapy in patients 70 years or older. Future studies similar in design might be feasible but will need to contend with patient treatment preference given the large number of patients who do not want an ICD implanted. Further research is needed to determine whether the ICD is effective in prolonging life among elderly device candidates.
PMID:38984364 | PMC:PMC11228113 | DOI:10.1016/j.hroo.2024.04.010
