We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Meta-analysis: age and effectiveness of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2010 November 3
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have been proven effective in several clinical trials.
PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about the effectiveness of ICDs versus standard medical therapy for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in different age groups of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Cardiosource, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1970 to April 2010) were searched with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify randomized, controlled trials of prophylactic ICD versus medical therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction that provided data about mortality outcomes for different age groups.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers assessed risk for bias of trials and extracted patient and study characteristics and hazard ratios (HRs) relevant to all-cause mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Five trials (MADIT-II, DEFINITE, DINAMIT, SCD-HeFT, and IRIS) that enrolled 5783 patients (44% were elderly) were included. The primary analysis, which excluded the 2 trials enrolling patients early after acute myocardial infarction (DINAMIT and IRIS), found that prophylactic ICD therapy reduced mortality in younger patients (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.83]; P < 0.001). A smaller survival benefit was found in elderly patients (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91]) that was not confirmed when MADIT-II patients older than 70 years were excluded or when data from DINAMIT and IRIS were included [corrected].
LIMITATIONS: Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available. Adjustment for differences in comorbid conditions and medical therapies among patients enrolled in the trials was not possible.
CONCLUSION: Available data suggest that prophylactic ICD therapy may be less beneficial for elderly patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction than for younger patients [corrected].
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about the effectiveness of ICDs versus standard medical therapy for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in different age groups of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Cardiosource, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science (January 1970 to April 2010) were searched with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify randomized, controlled trials of prophylactic ICD versus medical therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction that provided data about mortality outcomes for different age groups.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers assessed risk for bias of trials and extracted patient and study characteristics and hazard ratios (HRs) relevant to all-cause mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Five trials (MADIT-II, DEFINITE, DINAMIT, SCD-HeFT, and IRIS) that enrolled 5783 patients (44% were elderly) were included. The primary analysis, which excluded the 2 trials enrolling patients early after acute myocardial infarction (DINAMIT and IRIS), found that prophylactic ICD therapy reduced mortality in younger patients (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.83]; P < 0.001). A smaller survival benefit was found in elderly patients (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.91]) that was not confirmed when MADIT-II patients older than 70 years were excluded or when data from DINAMIT and IRIS were included [corrected].
LIMITATIONS: Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available. Adjustment for differences in comorbid conditions and medical therapies among patients enrolled in the trials was not possible.
CONCLUSION: Available data suggest that prophylactic ICD therapy may be less beneficial for elderly patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction than for younger patients [corrected].
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app