No abstract

AimsThe clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU‐CERT‐ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value.Methods and resultsThe EU‐CERT‐ICD is a prospective investigator‐initiated non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non‐randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all‐cause mortality; the co‐primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost‐effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years.ConclusionsThe EU‐CERT‐ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.

No abstract

Aims Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and electrical dyssynchrony. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations indicating optimal patient selection for CRT implantation in both the 2013 European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the 2016 Heart Failure Association (HFA) Guidelines. We assessed the adherence to guidelines and identified factors associated with guideline adherence. Methods and results In 2016, the HFA and EHRA conducted the CRT Survey II in 42 ESC countries. The data collected were sufficient to evaluate adherence to guidelines in 8021 patients. Of these, 67% had a Class I guideline indication for CRT implantation, which was significantly correlated with female gender (1.70, P < 0.0001), age <75 years (1.55, P < 0.0001), non-ischaemic HF aetiology (1.22, P < 0.0001), and elective admission (1.87, P < 0.0001). A further 26% of implants had a Class IIa indication, 5% IIb and only 2% a contraindication to CRT—a Class III indication. Patients implanted under Level IIa indications were much more likely to have more comorbidities than patients implanted under Level I indications. However, there were large variations in guideline adherence between ESC countries. Conclusion Implanters in ESC member states demonstrate a high degree of adherence to ESC guidelines with 98% of implants having a documented Class I, IIa or IIb indication. Cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation without a Class I indication was more likely in men, patients age ≥75 years, with HF of ischaemic origin and in patients admitted to hospital acutely.

No abstract