Rationale and design of the EU-CERT-ICD prospective study: comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy based on arrhythmic risk stratification and left ventricular reverse remodeling prediction

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) and significant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) have been markedly reduced over the last couple of decades as a result of the advances in pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) plays an important role in the treatment of patients at risk of SCD caused by ventricular arrhythmias. However, the arrhythmic risk stratification in patients with DCM remains extremely challenging, and the decision for primary prevention ICD implantation based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) solely appears to be insufficient. This review provides an update on current evidence for primary prevention ICD implantation, arrhythmic risk stratification, and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) prediction in patients with DCM in addition to most recent guideline recommendations for primary prevention ICD implantation in DCM patients and a proposed multiparametric algorithm based on arrhythmic risk stratification and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) prediction to better identify patients who are likely to benefit from primary prevention ICD.

Non-invasive markers for sudden cardiac death risk stratification in dilated cardiomyopathy

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a common yet challenging cardiac disease. Great strides have been made in improving DCM prognosis due to heart failure but sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular arrhythmias remains significant and challenging to predict. High-risk patients can be effectively managed with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) but because identification of what is high risk is very limited, many patients unnecessarily experience the morbidity associated with an ICD implant and many others are not identified and have preventable mortality. Current guidelines recommend use of left ventricular ejection fraction and New York Heart Association class as the main markers of risk stratification to identify patients who would be at higher risk of SCD. However, when analysing the data from the trials that these recommendations are based on, the number of patients in whom an ICD delivers appropriate therapy is modest. In order to improve the effectiveness of therapy with an ICD, the patients who are most likely to benefit need to be identified. This review article presents the evidence behind current guideline-directed SCD risk markers and then explores new potential imaging, electrophysiological and genetic risk markers for SCD in DCM.

Clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the EU-CERT-ICD controlled multicentre cohort study

Aims

The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy.

Methods and results

We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902).

Conclusion

In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

Dutch Outcome in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator-Related Complications in a Contemporary Primary Prevention Cohort

Background

One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria.

Methods and Results

Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator. During a follow‐up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0–2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead‐related (n=47) and pocket‐related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications.

Conclusions

One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator–related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Nocturnal respiratory rate predicts ICD benefit: A prospective, controlled, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. ICD implantation decisions are currently based on reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF≤35%). However, in some patients, the non-arrhythmic death risk predominates thus diminishing ICD-therapy benefits. Based on previous observations, we tested the hypothesis that compared to the others, patients with nocturnal respiratory rate (NRR) ≥18 breaths per minute (brpm) benefit less from prophylactic ICD implantations.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was a pre-defined sub-study of EU-CERT-ICD trial conducted at 44 centers in 15 EU countries between May 12, 2014, and September 6, 2018. Patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy were included if meeting primary prophylactic ICD implantation criteria. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. NRR was assessed blindly from pre-implantation 24-hour Holters. Multivariable models and propensity stratification evaluated the interaction between NRR and the ICD mortality effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0206419).

FINDINGS

Of the 2,247 EU-CERT-ICD patients, this sub-study included 1,971 with complete records. In 1,363 patients (61.7 (12) years; 244 women) an ICD was implanted; 608 patients (63.2 (12) years; 108 women) were treated conservatively. During a median 2.5-year follow-up, 202 (14.8%) and 95 (15.6%) patients died in the ICD and control groups, respectively. NRR statistically significantly interacted with the ICD mortality effect (p = 0.0070). While the 1,316 patients with NRR<18 brpm showed a marked ICD benefit on mortality (adjusted HR 0.529 (95% CI 0.376-0.746); p = 0.0003), no treatment effect was demonstrated in 655 patients with NRR≥18 brpm (adjusted HR 0.981 (95% CI 0.669-1.438); p = 0.9202).

INTERPRETATION

In the EU-CERT-ICD trial, patients with NRR≥18 brpm showed limited benefit from primary prophylactic ICD implantation. Those with NRR<18 brpm benefitted substantially.

FUNDING

European Community's 7th Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 (602299).

Short-Term Variability of the QT Interval Can be Used for the Prediction of Imminent Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients With Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background

Short‐term variability of the QT interval (STV_QT) has been proposed as a novel electrophysiological marker for the prediction of imminent ventricular arrhythmias in animal models. Our aim is to study whether STV_QT can predict imminent ventricular arrhythmias in patients.

Methods and Results

In 2331 patients with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators, 24‐hour ECG Holter recordings were obtained as part of the EU‐CERT‐ICD (European Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators) study. ECG Holter recordings showing ventricular arrhythmias of >4 consecutive complexes were selected for the arrhythmic groups (n=170), whereas a control group was randomly selected from the remaining Holter recordings (n=37). STV_QT was determined from 31 beats with fiducial segment averaging and calculated as ∑Dn+1‐Dn/30×2, where D_n represents the QT interval. STV_QT was determined before the ventricular arrhythmia or 8:00 am in the control group and between 1:30 and 4:30 am as baseline. STV_QT at baseline was 0.84±0.47 ms and increased to 1.18±0.74 ms (P<0.05) before the ventricular arrhythmia, whereas the STV_QT in the control group remained unchanged. The arrhythmic patients were divided into three groups based on the severity of the arrhythmia: (1) nonsustained ventricular arrhythmia (n=32), (2) nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (n=134), (3) sustained ventricular tachycardia (n=4). STV_QT increased before nonsustained ventricular arrhythmia, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and sustained ventricular tachycardia from 0.80±0.43 ms to 1.18±0.78 ms (P<0.05), from 0.90±0.49 ms to 1.14±0.70 ms (P<0.05), and from 1.05±0.22 ms to 2.33±1.25 ms (P<0.05). This rise in STV_QT was significantly higher in sustained ventricular tachycardia compared with nonsustained ventricular arrhythmia (+1.28±1.05 ms versus +0.24±0.57 ms [P<0.05]) and compared with nonsustained ventricular arrhythmia (+0.34±0.87 ms [P<0.05]).

Conclusions

STV_QT increases before imminent ventricular arrhythmias in patients, and the extent of the increase is associated with the severity of the ventricular arrhythmia.

Potential drug-drug interactions in patients with indication for prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator: a cross-sectional analysis

Background

Due to demographic transition, multimorbidity and high numbers of medicinal products, polypharmacy rates will presumably further increase. This could lead to higher risks of potentially inappropriate medications with potential drug-drug interactions (PDDI). PDDI has already been investigated by several studies, but not for patients with indication for prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Thus, the objective of this analysis was to examine the frequency of PDDI in that specific group of patients and compare patients with or without PDDI regarding potential underlying factors.

Methods

Cross-sectional data analyses were performed using data of the prospective EU-CERT-ICD study that primarily aimed to assess ICD effectiveness in Europe. Self-reported baseline medication data of patients from Germany and Switzerland were used. Patients who reported to take at least two drugs simultaneously for at least 80 days were defined as population at risk. By means of a publicly available interaction checker, we analyzed the medication data regarding occurrence and characteristics of PDDI categorized as minor, moderate, and major PDDI. The analyses were done using descriptive methods and chi square testing.

Results

The total population (n = 524) and the population at risk (n = 383) were rather similar with an average age of 64 years and about 80% male. PDDIs were found for 296 patients (in 57% of total population vs. 77% of population at risk). The moderate PDDI category was most frequently with 268 affected patients. Comparing patients with and without any PDDI, the proportion of patients with place of residence in Germany varied distinctly (93% vs. 78%). The frequency of any PDDI for the total population was twice as high in Germany as in Switzerland (p value < 0.001).

Conclusions

PDDIs were frequently observed in this selected patient population and differed markedly between German and Swiss patients. The results should lead to higher awareness of polypharmacy and PDDIs. Adequate cooperation between health care providers should be promoted and new technologies such as drug interaction information systems or digital patient files used.

Trial registration

The EU-CERT-ICD study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02064192).

Decision-making regarding primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among older adults

Most implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted for the purpose of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death among older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Shared decision‐making prior to device implantation is guideline‐recommended and payer‐mandated. This article summarizes patient and provider attitudes toward device placement, device efficacy and effectiveness, potential periprocedural complications, long‐term events such as shocks, quality of life, costs, and shared decision‐making principles and recommendations. Most patients eligible for an ICD anticipate more than 10 years of survival. Physicians are less likely to offer an ICD to patients ≥80 years of age given a perceived lack of benefit. There is a dearth of data from randomized clinical trials addressing device efficacy among older patients; there is a need for more research in this area. However, currently available data support the use of ICDs irrespective of age provided life expectancy exceeds 1 year. Advanced age is independently associated with complications at the time of device placement but not the risk of device infection. The risk of inappropriate shock may be comparable or lower than that of younger patients. While quality of life is generally not adversely impacted by an ICD, a subset of patients experience post‐traumatic stress disorder. ICDs are cost‐effective from societal and health care sector perspectives; however, out‐of‐pocket costs vary according to insurance type and level. Shared decision‐making encounters may be incremental and iterative in nature. Providers are encouraged to partner with their patients, providing them counsel tailored to their values, preferences, and clinical presentation inclusive of age.

Association Between Use of Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure

Background:

Most randomized trials on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled patients >20 years ago. We investigated the association between ICD use and all-cause mortality in a contemporary heart failure with reduced ejection fraction cohort and examined relevant subgroups.

Methods:

Patients from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry fulfilling the European Society of Cardiology criteria for primary-prevention ICD were included. The association between ICD use and 1-year and 5-year all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity score–matched cohort and in prespecified subgroups.

Results:

Of 16 702 eligible patients, only 1599 (10%) had an ICD. After matching, 1305 ICD recipients were compared with 1305 nonrecipients. ICD use was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality risk within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60–0.90]) and 5 years (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78–0.99]). Results were consistent in all subgroups including patients with versus without ischemic heart disease, men versus women, those aged <75 versus ≥75 years, those with earlier versus later enrollment in the Swedish heart failure registry, and patients with versus without cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Conclusions:

In a contemporary heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population, ICD for primary prevention was underused, although it was associated with reduced short- and long-term all-cause mortality. This association was consistent across all the investigated subgroups. These results call for better implementation of ICD therapy.

Prediction of mortality benefit based on periodic repolarisation dynamics in patients undergoing prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator: a prospective, controlled, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

A small proportion of patients undergoing primary prophylactic implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) experiences malignant arrhythmias. We postulated that periodic repolarisation dynamics, a novel marker of sympathetic-activity-associated repolarisation instability, could be used to identify electrically vulnerable patients who would benefit from prophylactic implantation of ICDs by way of a reduction in mortality.

METHODS

We did a prespecified substudy of EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective, investigator-initiated, non-randomised, controlled cohort study done at 44 centres in 15 EU countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with ischaemic or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤35%) were eligible for inclusion if they met guideline-based criteria for primary prophylactic implantation of ICDs. Periodic repolarisation dynamics from 24-h Holter recordings were assessed blindly in patients the day before ICD implantation or on the day of study enrolment in patients who were conservatively managed. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Propensity scoring and multivariable models were used to assess the interaction between periodic repolarisation dynamics and the treatment effect of ICDs on mortality.

FINDINGS

Between May 12, 2014, and Sept 7, 2018, 1371 patients were enrolled in our study. 968 of these patients underwent ICD implantation, and 403 were treated conservatively. During follow-up (median 2·7 years [IQR 2·0-3·3] in the ICD group and 1·2 years [0·8-2·7] in the control group), 138 (14%) patients died in the ICD group and 64 (16%) patients died in the control group. We noted a 43% reduction in mortality in the ICD group compared with the control group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·79]; p=0·0008). Periodic repolarisation dynamics significantly predicted the treatment effect of ICDs on mortality (adjusted p=0·0307). The mortality benefits associated with ICD implantation were greater in patients with periodic repolarisation dynamics of 7·5 deg or higher (n=199; adjusted HR 0·25 [95% CI 0·13-0·47] for the ICD group vs the control group; p<0·0001) than in those with periodic repolarisation dynamics less than 7·5 deg (n=1166; adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·47-1·00]; p=0·0492; p_interaction=0·0056). The number needed to treat was 18·3 (95% CI 10·6-4895·3) in patients with periodic repolarisation dynamics less than 7·5 deg and 3·1 (2·6-4·8) in those with periodic repolarisation dynamics of 7·5 deg or higher.

INTERPRETATION

Periodic repolarisation dynamics predict mortality reductions associated with prophylactic implantation of ICDs in contemporarily treated patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Periodic repolarisation dynamics could help to guide treatment decisions about prophylactic ICD implantation.

FUNDING

The European Community's 7th Framework Programme.

Present criteria for prophylactic ICD implantation: Insights from the EU-CERT-ICD (Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in EUrope) project

BACKGROUND

The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. It is urgently needed to better identify patients who benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) completed in 2019 will assess this issue.

SUMMARY

The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicenter observational cohort study done in 44 centers across 15 European countries. A total of 2327 patients with heart failure due to ischemic heart disease or dilated cardiomyopathy indicated for primary prophylactic ICD implantation were recruited between 2014 and 2018 (>1500 patients at first ICD implantation, >750 patients non-randomized non-ICD control group). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and first appropriate shock was co-primary endpoint. At baseline, all patients underwent 12‑lead ECG and Holter-ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. The EU-CERT-ICD data will provide much needed information on the survival benefit of preventive ICD therapy and expand on previous prospective risk stratification studies which showed very good applicability of clinical parameters and advanced risk stratifiers in order to define patient subgroups with above or below average ICD benefit.

CONCLUSION

The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide new and current data about effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. The study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical risk markers in general, and advanced ECG risk markers in particular.

Rationale and design of the EU-CERT-ICD prospective study: comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

Aims

The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU‐CERT‐ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value.

Methods and results

The EU‐CERT‐ICD is a prospective investigator‐initiated non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non‐randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all‐cause mortality; the co‐primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost‐effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years.

Conclusions

The EU‐CERT‐ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.