Aims: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduces mortality in selected patients. However, its role in patients older than 75 years is not well established.
Methods and results: We performed a retrospective, non-randomized study using a historical cohort from a single centre. Between January 2008 and July 2014, we assessed patients aged ≥75 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, identifying 385 patients with a Class I or IIa recommendation for ICD implantation. At the decision of the patient or attending cardiologists, 92 patients received an ICD. To avoid potential confounding factors, we used propensity-score matching. Finally, 126 patients were included (63 with ICD). The mean age was 79.1 ± 3.1 years (86.5% male). As compared with the medical therapy group, the ICD patients had a lower percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (19.0% vs. 38.1%, P < 0.05) and more frequent use of beta-blockers (BBs) (85.7 vs. 70.0%, P < 0.05). Other treatments were otherwise similar in both groups. There were no differences related to age, aetiology, or other co-morbidities. During follow-up (39.2 ± 22.4 months), total mortality was 46.0% and cardiovascular events (death or hospitalization) occurred in 66.7% of the patients. A multivariate analysis revealed that only BB therapy was shown to be an independent protective variable with respect to mortality [hazard ratio 0.4 (0.2-0.7)]. ICD therapy did not reduce overall mortality or the rate of cardiovascular events.
Conclusions: According to our results, the use of ICD, as compared with medical therapy, in patients older than 75 years did not demonstrate any benefit. Well-designed randomized controlled studies in patients older than 75 years are needed to ascertain the value of ICD therapy.
Keywords: Elderly; Heart failure; Implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Low ejection fraction.
© 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.