Cardioverter–defibrillator does not improve short-term survival among patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Introduction The DANISH trial raised doubts about the effectiveness of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death by ICD implantation among patients with non-ischemic heart failure. We sought to analyse data from the EVITA-HF registry to give an answer from real-world registry data to the DANISH trial. Methods 1804 patients were identified from the EVITA-HF registry with chronic heart failure (CHF) due to ischemic or dilated heart disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 35%. The patients were divided into two groups: Patients with newly implanted cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD group; mean age 66 ± 12 years, 77% male) and without ICD (no-ICD group; mean age 66 ± 14 years, 77% male). The subgroups were compared with regard to mortality and predictive parameters affecting survival. Results Cardiovascular risk factors were similar among patients in the non-ICD group ( n = 1473) compared to ICD group ( n = 331). After 1-year follow-up patients with ischemic heart disease showed a significant improved survival in the ICD group compared to non-ICD group [92.1% vs. 80.6%, HR 0.37 (0.22–0.62)]. Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy did not show a difference with regard to survival between the ICD and the non-ICD group [93.7% vs. 93.1%, HR 0.92 (0.43–1.97)]. The data were stable in a Cox-regression model. Conclusion In a real-world setting, no benefit was evident for patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction by adding ICD therapy in a short-term follow-up of 12 months in contrast to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Graphic abstract