Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in the very elderly.
Arrhythmias
Geriatrics
Heart failure
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Prevention
Sudden death
Ventricular tachycardia
Journal
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-2092
Titre abrégé: Europace
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883649
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2019
01 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
15
09
2018
accepted:
22
02
2019
pubmed:
21
3
2019
medline:
3
11
2020
entrez:
21
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current guidelines do not propose any age cut-off for the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). However, the risk/benefit balance in the very elderly population has not been well studied. In a multicentre French study assessing patients implanted with an ICD for primary prevention, outcomes among patients aged ≥80 years were compared with <80 years old controls matched for sex and underlying heart disease (ischaemic and dilated cardiomyopathy). A total of 300 ICD recipients were enrolled in this specific analysis, including 150 patients ≥80 years (mean age 81.9 ± 2.0 years; 86.7% males) and 150 controls (mean age 61.8 ± 10.8 years). Among older patients, 92 (75.6%) had no more than one associated comorbidity. Most subjects in the elderly group got an ICD as part of a cardiac resynchronization therapy procedure (74% vs. 46%, P < 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 3.0 ± 2 years, 53 patients (35%) in the elderly group died, including 38.2% from non cardiovascular causes of death. Similar proportion of patients received ≥1 appropriate therapy (19.4% vs. 21.6%; P = 0.65) in the elderly group and controls, respectively. There was a trend towards more early perioperative events (P = 0.10) in the elderly, with no significant increase in late complications (P = 0.73). Primary prevention ICD recipients ≥80 years in the real world had relatively low associated comorbidity. Rates of appropriate therapies and device-related complications were similar, compared with younger subjects. Nevertheless, the inherent limitations in interpreting observational data on this particular competing risk situation call for randomized controlled trials to provide definitive answers. Meanwhile, a careful multidisciplinary evaluation is needed to guide patient selection for ICD implantation in the elderly population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30891608
pii: 5396693
doi: 10.1093/europace/euz041
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1063-1069Informations de copyright
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.