• Vern Hsen Tan, Stephen B Wilton, Vikas Kuriachan, Glen L Sumner, and Derek V Exner.
• Department of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Calgary, Canada.
• Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014 Feb 1; 7 (1): 164-70.

BackgroundPatients who receive implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies are at higher risk of death versus those who do not. Programmed settings to reduce nonessential implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies (therapy reduction programming) have been developed but may have adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the relationship between therapy reduction programming with the risks of death from any cause, implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks, and syncope.Methods And ResultsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Those that followed patients for ≥6 months and reported mortality were included. Six met the inclusion criteria; 4 randomized (Comparison of Empiric to Physician-Tailored Programming of ICDs [EMPIRIC], Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy [MADIT-RIT], Avoid Delivering Therapies for Non-sustained Arrhythmias in ICD Patients III [ADVANCE III], and Programming Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients with Primary Prevention Indication to Prolong Time to First Shock [PROVIDE]) and 2 prospective studies (Role of Long Detection Window Programming in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction, Non-ischemic Etiology in Primary Prevention Treated with a Biventricular ICD [RELEVANT] and Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation [PREPARE]). These 6 studies included 7687 (3598 conventional and 4089 therapy reduction programming) patients. Most (77%) participants were men, had a history of ischemic heart disease (56%), and were prescribed β-blockers (84%). Therapy reduction programming was associated with a 30% relative reduction in mortality (95% confidence interval, 16%-41%; P<0.001). No significant heterogeneity among studies was observed (P=0.6). A similar 26% reduction in mortality was observed when only the 4 randomized trials were included (95% confidence interval, 11%-40%; P=0.002). These results were not significantly altered after adjustment for baseline characteristics. No significant difference in the risk of syncope was observed with conventional versus therapy reduction programming (P=0.5).ConclusionsTherapy reduction programming results in a large, significant, and consistent reduction in mortality, with no apparent increase in the risk of syncope.

27 keywords...

hide…