Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background: The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is controversial in patients who have heart failure with improved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% after implantation (HFimpEF). Methods: Databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were queried for studies in patients with ICD that reported the association between HFimpEF and arrhythmic events (AEs), defined as the combined incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD intervention, and sudden cardiac death (primary composite end point).Results: A total of 41 studies and 38,572 patients (11,135 with HFimpEF, 27,437 with persistent EF ≤35%) were included; mean follow-up was 43 months. HFimpEF was associated with decreased AEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.47; annual rate [AR] 4.1% vs 8%, p <0.01). Super-responders (EF ≥50%) had less risk of AEs than did patients with more modest reverse remodeling (EF >35% and <50%, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, AR 2.7% vs 6.2%, p <0.01). Patients with HFimpEF who had an initial primary-prevention indication had less risk of AEs (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.61, AR 5.1% vs 10.3%, p <0.01). Among patients with primary prevention who had never received appropriate ICD therapy at the time of generator change, HFimpEF was associated with decreased subsequent AEs (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, AR 1.6% vs 4.8%, p <0.01). In conclusion, HFimpEF is associated with reduced, but not eliminated, risk for AEs in patients with ICDs. The decision to replace an ICD in subgroups at less risk should incorporate shared decision making based on risks for subsequent AEs and procedural complications.