Published in:
01-01-2020 | Shock | Original Paper
Prognostic relevance of new onset arrhythmia and ICD shocks in primary prophylactic ICD patients
Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology | Issue 1/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The prognostic relevance of new onset arrhythmias compared to ICD shocks in ICD patients is not well known.
Objectives
Aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic relevance of new onset atrial fibrillation (AF) or ventricular arrhythmias (VT/VF) compared to ICD shocks in primary prophylactic ICD-patients.
Methods
A total of 622 of 1955 (32%) patients of the prospective single-centre ICD-registry Ludwigshafen with primary prophylactic ICD indication and sinus rhythm (SR) at baseline without history of AF were analyzed. All patients underwent an ICD implantation between 1992 and 2012.
Results
During the median follow-up time of 6 years, 200 (32%) ICD patients developed new AF and 249 (40%) patients new VT/VF. There was an approximately 10% increase of 5-year mortality rate depending on the type of new onset arrhythmia (no arrhythmia 19%, new AF 28%, new VT 36% and new VF 55% 5-year mortality). In a multivariate analysis, new onset of AF or VT/VF was an independent predictor for increased mortality whereas VT shocks and inappropriate ICD shocks were not.
Conclusion
More than half of primary prophylactic ICD patients with SR at baseline develop new AF or VT/VF after 6 years. New onset arrhythmias of AF and VT/VF are independent prognostic factors for increased mortality in primary prophylactic ICD patients. ICD shocks itself, inappropriate or appropriate, are not additionally associated with a worse outcome. These results support the hypothesis that in clinical practice rather the arrhythmia than the ICD shock itself is responsible for a deteriorated prognosis.