Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35%

Background Consensus guidelines support the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with either non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, evidence from trials for efficacy specifically for patients with LVEF near 35% is weak. Past trials are underpowered for this population and future trials are unlikely to be performed.Methods Patients with lowest LVEF between 30% and 35% without an ICD prior to the lowest-LVEF echo (defined as ‘time zero’) were identified by querying echocardiography data from 28 November 2001 to 9 July 2020 at the Massachusetts General Hospital linked to ICD treatment status. To assess the association between ICD and mortality, propensity score matching followed by Cox proportional hazards models considering treatment status as a time-dependent covariate was used. A secondary analysis was performed for LVEF 36%–40%.Results Initially, 526 440 echocardiograms representing 266 601 unique patients were identified. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 6109 patients remained for the analytical cohort. In bivariate unadjusted comparisons, patients who received ICDs were substantially more often male (79.8% vs 65.4%, p<0.0001), more often white (87.5% vs 83.7%, p<0.046) and more often had a history of ventricular tachycardia (74.5% vs 19.1%, p<0.0001) and myocardial infarction (56.1% vs 38.2%, p<0.0001). In the propensity matched sample, after accounting for time-dependence, there was no association between ICD and mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, p=0.482).Conclusions ICD therapy was not associated with reduced mortality near the conventional LVEF threshold of 35%. Although this treatment design cannot definitively demonstrate lack of efficacy, our results are concordant with available prior trial data. A definitive, well-powered trial is needed to answer the important clinical question of primary prevention ICD efficacy between LVEF 30% and 35%

Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the implementation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during refractory cardiac arrest. The role of left-ventricular (LV) unloading with Impella in addition to VA-ECMO ("ECMELLA") remains unclear during ECPR. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize patients with ECPR receiving LV unloading and to compare in-hospital mortality between ECMELLA and VA-ECMO during ECPR.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and abstract websites of the three largest cardiology societies (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology).STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies with adult patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving ECPR with ECMELLA or VA-ECMO until July 2023 according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist.DATA EXTRACTION: Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital mortality from 13 study records at 32 hospitals with a total of 1014 ECPR patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel test using a random-effects model.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients (75.1%) received VA-ECMO and 252 (24.9%) ECMELLA. Compared with VA-ECMO, the ECMELLA group was comprised of more patients with initial shockable electrocardiogram rhythms (58.6% vs. 49.3%), acute myocardial infarctions (79.7% vs. 51.5%), and percutaneous coronary interventions (79.0% vs. 47.5%). VA-ECMO alone was more frequently used in pulmonary embolism (9.5% vs. 0.7%). Age, rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and low-flow times were similar between both groups. ECMELLA support was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.91]) and higher odds of good neurologic outcome (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.17-4.22]) compared with VA-ECMO support alone. ECMELLA therapy was associated with numerically increased but not significantly higher complication rates. Primary results remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS: ECMELLA support was predominantly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction and VA-ECMO for pulmonary embolism. ECMELLA support during ECPR might be associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome despite higher complication rates. However, indications and frequency of ECMELLA support varied strongly between institutions. Further scientific evidence is urgently required to elaborate standardized guidelines for the use of LV unloading during ECPR.</p