RUB » Bibliotheksportal

Marie Lewenhardt, Fabienne Kreimer, Assem Aweimer, Andreas Pflaumbaum, Andreas Mügge, Michael Gotzmann

• \(\bf Background\) The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in elderly patients has been questioned. In the present study, we aimed to analyse the outcome of patients of different age groups with ICD implantation. \(\bf Methods\) We included all patients who received an ICD in our hospital from 2011 to 2020. Primary endpoints were (1) death from any cause and (2) appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing/shock). A "benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as appropriate ICD therapy before death from any cause/or survival. "No benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as death from any cause without prior appropriate ICD therapy. \(\bf Results\) A total of 422 patients received an ICD (primary prophylaxis \(\it n\) = 323, secondary prophylaxis \(\it n\) = 99). At the time of implantation, 35 patients (8%) were >80 years and 106 patients were >75 years (25%). During the study period of 4.2 \(\pm\) 3 years, benefit of ICD occurred in 89 patients (21%) and no benefit in 84 patients (20%). In primary prevention, the proportion of patients who had a benefit from ICD implantation decreased with increasing age, and there were no patients who benefited from ICD therapy in the group of patients >80 years. In secondary prophylaxis, the proportion of patients with a benefit from ICD implantation ranged from 20% to 30% in all age groups. \(\bf Conclusion\) Our study suggests that the indication of primary prophylactic ICD in elderly and very old patients should be critically assessed. On the other hand, no patient should be denied secondary prophylactic ICD implantation because of age.