MADIT II/SCD-HeFT Results: Have They Already Achieved an Impact in Europe?
The MADIT II study and the SCD-HeFT studies suggest that the ICD reduces total mortality in patients with patients with LV dysfunction. However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment makes it far from affordable. Better selection of patients that could benefit from an ICD might increase the cost-effectiveness and decrease the percentage of patients in whom an ICD will only produce inappropriate discharges and other undesirable effects. Subgroup analysis has demonstrated a progressive increase in effectiveness of the ICD as QRS duration increases. Little benefit was derived in patients with a QRS of less than 0.12 s, whereas if a QRS duration of 0.15 s was used as a cut-off, a marked reduction in SCD was observed, comparable to that in MUSTT and MADIT I. Similarly, in the SCD-HeFT trial the relative benefits of ICD therapy appeared greater in patients with NYHA class II heart failure, the group in which sudden death is expected to predominate. There seemed to be no benefit in patients with NYHA class III heart failure.
KeywordsLeft Ventricular Ejection Fraction Sudden Cardiac Death NYHA Class Multicenter Automate Defibrillator Implantation Trial Optimal Pharmacological Therapy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB et al (2004) Sudden Cardiac Death-Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Paper presented at American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Sessions, New Orleans 2004-Late Breaking Trial; 7–10 March 2004, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
- 6.Marti Almor J, Delclos Baulies M, Delclos Urges J et al (2004) Prevalence and clinical course of patients in Spain with acute myocardial infarction and severely depressed ejection fraction who meet the criteria for automatic defibrillator implantation. Rev Esp Cardiol 57:705–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Ortiz M, Arenal A, González-Torrecilla E et al (2004) El desfibrilador automático implantable en la prevención primaria de la muerte súbita. ¿Existen diferencias entre los pacientes según los criterios de selección? Rev Esp Cardiol 57(Suppl 2):141Google Scholar