Authors

• Mislav Puljević — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0003-1477-2581
• Mia Dubravčić Došen — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0003-0441-4772
• Vedran Pašara — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0002-6587-2315
• Ivan Prepolec — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0001-5870-202X
• Pero Hrabač — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0001-7382-4789
• Ana-Marija Brekalo — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0003-0053-0442
• Martina Lovrić-Benčić — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0001-8446-6120
• Miroslav Krpan — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0002-0639-953X
• Richard Matasić — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0003-1289-1704
• Borka Pezo Nikolić — University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0002-0504-5238
• Davor Puljević — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0003-3603-2242
• Davor Miličić — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0001-9101-1570
• Vedran Velagić — University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia — ORCID: 0000-0001-5425-5840

Keywords

implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, sudden cardiac death, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, ischemic cardiomyopathy

DOI

Full Text

**Introduction**: While implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) effectively reduce sudden cardiac death, their impact on overall survival differs between ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). (1-3) This study investigates survival outcomes and the significance of age in a cohort of ICD recipients. **Patients and Methods**: A retrospective cohort of 786 patients who underwent ICD implantation between 2009 and 2018 was analyzed. Survival outcomes were assessed with a focus on differences between ICM and NICM, and the influence of age on device efficacy. **Results**: Patients with NICM showed a lower rate of appropriate device activation compared to ICM (23% vs. 28%). Despite this, ICD implantation significantly improved survival in both groups, with younger patients (<70 years) benefiting the most. Age, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), and cardiac decompensation history were strong predictors of (non)survival. **Conclusions**: ICD implantation offers clear survival benefits in both ICM and NICM, though younger patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy experience better outcomes. Age and cardiomyopathy type are crucial factors in determining the effectiveness of ICD therapy.

Literature

1. Theuns DA, Verstraelen TE, van der Lingen ACJ, Delnoy PP, Allaart CP, van Erven L, et al. Implantable defibrillator therapy and mortality in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy: An updated meta-analysis and effect on Dutch clinical practice by the Task Force of the Dutch Society of Cardiology. Neth Heart J. 2023 March;31(3):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-022-01718-3
2. Elming MB, Nielsen JC, Haarbo J, Videbæk L, Korup E, Signorovitch J, et al. Age and Outcomes of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients With Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure. Circulation. 2017 November 7;136(19):1772–80. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028829
3. Zeppenfeld K, Tfelt-Hansen J, de Riva M, Winkel BG, Behr ER, Blom NA, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2022 October 21;43(40):3997–4126. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac262