Comparison and predictors of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for primary and secondary prevention

BackgroundImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective in detecting and treating ventricular arrhythmias. Studies on ICD therapy for different indications (primary and secondary prevention) and possible predictors of ICD therapy are limited. In this study, the incidence and type of ICD therapy were related to the indication and the underlying cardiac pathology.MethodsA single-centre, retrospective and observational study was performed of 482 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary (53.3%) or secondary prevention (46.7%) between 2015 and 2020 at the Radboud University Medical Centre.ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range 0.2-3.9), the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapy for primary versus secondary prevention was 9.7% and 27.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Time to appropriate ICD therapy was significantly shorter in the secondary prevention group (p < 0.001). No difference in ICD therapy was seen for different underlying aetiologies. In the majority of cases (70%) ICD therapy was given for ventricular tachycardia (VT). The occurrence of adverse events (16.3% vs 17.3%, p = 0.772), hospitalisation for cardiovascular reasons (29.2% vs 35.1%, p = 0.559) and all-cause mortality (12.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.763) were similar in both groups. Male gender (3.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.003, 12.403), p = 0.049) and secondary prevention indication (4.90, 95% CI (1.495, 16.066), p = 0.009) were predictors of appropriate ICD therapy.ConclusionThe risk associated with appropriate ICD therapy is higher in secondary prevention patients, who have their first therapy within a shorter time frame after device implantation. Rates of complications, hospitalisation and all-cause mortality are comparable. Future treatment options should target the prevention of ICD therapy, mainly by preventing the recurrence of VT.