心梗后心源性猝死一级预防的紧迫性和必要性课件.pptVIP

225,000 to 300,000 of SCA patients in the U.S. have had a previous MI. ICD therapy reduced overall mortality by 54% compared to conventional therapy (relative risk reduction). By examining the Kaplan-Meier survival curves, we note that the ICD benefit began after approximately one year. Importantly, as demonstrated by the widening of the curves over time, the ICD benefit appears to increase over time. In an important recent analysis, Dr. Moss announced that there was a 40% cumulative probability of appropriate ICD therapy (ATP or shock) for VT or VF during the 4-year follow-up after ICD implantation. This finding clearly shows the improving cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy with longer follow-up periods.[i]  [i] Moss, Arthur. MADIT I and MADIT II. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. Vol. 14, No. 9, September 2003 20 MUSTT was the next major primary prevention study that showed excellent results with ICD therapy. MUSTT was originally intended to compare EP-guided therapy (ICD or AAD) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy. On further analysis, the investigators found that ICD therapy was far superior to AAD drug therapy. The primary endpoint of MUSTT was arrhythmic mortality unlike all the other ICD trials which used overall mortality as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint in MUSTT was overall mortality. The entry criteria for MUSTT was similar to MADIT I: LVEF ? 40%, CAD, non-sustained VT, sustained VT on programmed electrical stimulation. Given the similar inclusion criteria, it is not surprising that the results of MUSTT were consistent with MADIT. After adjusting for covariates, MUSTT showed a 73% reduction in arrhythmic mortality and a 55% reduction in overall mortality in the ICD arm compared to patients taking no antiarrhythmic therapy. After the publishing of the MUSTT results, physician adoption of the MADIT indication increased significantly. This is not surprising given the consistent results and similar inclusion criteria of MADIT and