Background: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is frequent in patients with heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) device therapy is currently used for primary prevention. However, publication of the DANISH trial has recently given reason for doubt, showing no significant improvement in all-cause mortality in comparison to contemporary medical therapy.
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing ICD therapy to medical therapy (MT) for primary prevention in DCM. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary analyses were performed on sudden cardiac death, cardiovascular death and non-cardiac death.
Results: Five trials including a total of 2992 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Compared to contemporary medical treatment there was a significant mortality reduction with ICD device therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.93; p = 0.006]. SCD was decreased significantly (OR 0.43, CI 0.27-0.69; p = 0.0004), while cardiovascular death and non-cardiac death showed no differences. Sensitivity analyses showed no influence of amiodarone therapy on overall results. Analysis of MT details revealed the DANISH population to adhere the most to current guideline recommendations. In addition, it was the only study including a substantial amount of CRT devices (58%).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of all available randomized evidence shows a survival benefit of ICD therapy for primary prevention in DCM. DANISH results suggest an attenuation of this ICD advantage when compared to contemporary medical and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Until larger trials have confirmed this finding, ICD therapy should remain the recommendation for primary prevention of SCD in DCM.
Keywords: Dilated cardiomyopathy; Heart failure; ICD; Implantable defibrillator; Meta-analysis.