What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indication (n=740). Intervention: Ischemic cardiomyopathy vs. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Primary outcome: Appropriate ICD therapy (p=0.124).

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research assesses long-term survival and event rates following ICD implantation for primary prevention in a broad patient population.

June 27, 2026EP EuropaceOpen Access

Primary prevention ICDs show no difference in appropriate therapy between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Population

740 patients who received a first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention between…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

median 7.54 years

Key result

In primary prevention ICD recipients, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 23.5% of patients with ischemic and 18.6% with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (p=0.124) over a median 7.54 years.

Authors

JRJ Romers MGM Van Der Graaf VDV F Van Dijk

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Higher long-term mortality in iCMP versus niCMP with ICDs; reinforces etiology-specific risk stratification in evolving guidelines.

Key Points

This research assesses long-term survival and event rates following ICD implantation for primary prevention in a broad patient population.
Extended follow-up of the DO-IT study with patients who received their first ICD between September 2014 and June 2016.
Retrospective reporting from all participating DO-IT centers regarding survival and clinical events up to 10 years.
Endpoints included overall survival, appropriate/inappropriate ICD therapy, and device-related complications.
In a cohort of 740 patients, 38.4% died after a median follow-up of 7.54 years, with higher rates among ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.
21.2% of patients received appropriate ICD therapy, showing no significant difference between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy groups.
Complications leading to hospitalization occurred in 64 patients, with most attributed to lead issues.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=740)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Population

740 patients who received a first ICD for primary prevention, including those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, followed for a median of 7.54 years.

Exposure

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention (40.5% biventricular, 37.3% single-chamber)

Outcome

Overall survival, (in)appropriate ICD therapy and device-related complications up to 10 yearshard clinical

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 23.5% vs 18.6%

p-value: p=0.124

Long-term follow-up of primary prevention ICD recipients demonstrates a high rate of appropriate therapies even in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, challenging the trend toward withholding ICDs in this population.

Cite This Study

Romers et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indication (n=740). Ischemic cardiomyopathy vs. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy was evaluated on Appropriate ICD therapy (p=0.124). In primary prevention ICD recipients, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 23.5% of patients with ischemic and 18.6% with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (p=0.124) over a median 7.54 years.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a3f9785125782b61d8657a0 https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euag105.112

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

June 27, 2026EP EuropaceOpen Access

Primary prevention ICDs show no difference in appropriate therapy between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Population

740 patients who received a first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention between…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

median 7.54 years

Key result

In primary prevention ICD recipients, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 23.5% of patients with ischemic and 18.6% with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (p=0.124) over a median 7.54 years.

Authors

JRJ Romers MGM Van Der Graaf VDV F Van Dijk

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Higher long-term mortality in iCMP versus niCMP with ICDs; reinforces etiology-specific risk stratification in evolving guidelines.

Key Points

This research assesses long-term survival and event rates following ICD implantation for primary prevention in a broad patient population.
Extended follow-up of the DO-IT study with patients who received their first ICD between September 2014 and June 2016.
Retrospective reporting from all participating DO-IT centers regarding survival and clinical events up to 10 years.
Endpoints included overall survival, appropriate/inappropriate ICD therapy, and device-related complications.
In a cohort of 740 patients, 38.4% died after a median follow-up of 7.54 years, with higher rates among ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.
21.2% of patients received appropriate ICD therapy, showing no significant difference between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy groups.
Complications leading to hospitalization occurred in 64 patients, with most attributed to lead issues.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=740)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

What are the long-term survival, appropriate therapy, and complication rates of primary prevention ICD implantation in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Population

740 patients who received a first ICD for primary prevention, including those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, followed for a median of 7.54 years.

Exposure

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention (40.5% biventricular, 37.3% single-chamber)

Outcome

Overall survival, (in)appropriate ICD therapy and device-related complications up to 10 yearshard clinical

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 23.5% vs 18.6%

p-value: p=0.124

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a3f9785125782b61d8657a0 https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euag105.112

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark