Implantable Defibrillator

This document was published more than 2 years ago. The nature of the evidence may have changed.

Summary and Conclusions

Technology and target group

Cardiac arrhythmias (disruptions in heart rhythm) are common. While some arrhythmias are harmless (eg, extra beats), others such as ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation are serious disorders that can lead to sudden death. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) can continuously monitor the users cardiac rhythm to detect and treat serious arrhythmias in the ventricles of the heart. Treatment involving an ICD may be appropriate in patients who have already experienced a symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia (cardiac arrest) or have life threatening ventricular arrhythmias associated with decreased function in the left ventricle and/or experience fainting. In these cases, the aim of using an ICD is to prevent recurrence, ie, treatment aims at secondary prevention, which has been the most common area of application for the method in Sweden. Treatment can also aim at primary prevention. This includes patients at higher risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias, eg, following myocardial infarction or cases of heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular function, but who have not yet presented with serious cardiac dysrhythmias. Furthermore, the expected survival with ICD treatment should be at least about 2 years.

Information is insufficient to accurately predict the number of patients who would be appropriate candidates for ICD treatment. Based on current practice, the target group for ICD treatment aimed at secondary prevention would be approximately 400 to 500 patients per year (4.4 to 5.6 per 100 000 population). The size of the target group for ICD treatment aimed at primary prevention is difficult to estimate since the indications for treatment involve assessing the increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias and weighing in the life expectancy of the patient. A rough estimate would be 1000 to 1500 patients per year (11.1 to 16.7 per 100 000 population).

Primary question

What effect does ICD treatment have on survival when used for purposes of secondary and primary prevention, and what are the costs associated with the method? This assessment updates an earlier report (published February 19, 2003).

Patent benefit

Three randomized controlled trials including nearly 2000 patients compared pharmacotherapy against ICD treatment aimed at secondary prevention. The combined results of these studies show a mortality rate of 8.8% in the ICD group compared to 12.3% in the pharmacotherapy group. This indicates that 29 patients would need to be treated with ICD for one year to avoid one additional death.

As regards ICD treatment aimed at primary prevention, 10 randomized trials including slightly over 8600 patients were identified. Of these trials, 4 addressed treatment following myocardial infarction, 1 addressed treatment in conjunction with coronary artery surgery, and 5 included an assessment of ICD treatment in heart failure. A meta-analysis synthesized the results from studies on ICD treatment in primary prevention. It showed that mortality was 8% lower in the group that received ICD treatment. The risks associated with ICD treatment include perioperative death, infections, thromboembolytic complications, cardiac perforation, and the possibility that the defibrillator could incorrectly interpret the heart rate, leading to delivery of inadequate shocks.

Ethical aspects

Patients at higher risk for sudden death are naturally worried about their situation. It is important for patients to receive factual and appropriate information adapted to the needs of each individual. Currently, most hospitals that provide ICD treatment also have local support groups for these patients.

Economic aspects

An ICD costs between 90 000 and 180 000 Swedish kronor (SEK). In addition, there are the costs for surgery, surgery-related care, and followup visits, totaling approximately 40 000 SEK. Studies estimate that the cost per life year gained for ICD in secondary prevention is between 500 000 SEK and 1.8 million SEK. Cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that the cost per life year gained for ICD aimed at primary prevention in patients who have had myocardial infarction is between 200 000 and 800 000 SEK. Regarding primary prevention in heart failure patients, the cost per life year gained is around 400 000 to 800 000 SEK. Due to the capital investment costs associated with implantation, the cost effectiveness of ICD treatment depends on the survival time of patients who respond to treatment.

SBUs appraisal of the evidence

There is strong scientific evidence that ICD treatment aimed at secondary prevention leads to lower mortality (Evidence Grade 1)*. There is moderately strong scientific evidence that ICD treatment aimed at primary prevention leads to lower mortality (Evidence Grade 2)*.

Criteria for Evidence Grading SBUs Conclusions
Evidence Grade 1 - Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two independent studies with high quality and internal validity, or a good systematic overview.
Evidence Grade 2 - Moderately Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by one study with high quality and internal validity, and at least two studies with medium quality and internal validity.
Evidence Grade 3 - Limited Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two studies with medium quality and internal validity.
Insufficient Scientific Evidence. No conclusions can be drawn when there are not any studies that meet the criteria for quality and internal validity.
Contradictory Scientific Evidence. No conclusions can be drawn when there are studies with the same quality and internal validity whose findings contradict each other.

This summary is based on a report prepared at SBU in collaboration with Assoc. Prof. Anders Englund, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro. It has been reviewed by Prof. Mårten Rosenqvist, Stockholm Söder Hospital, Stockholm.

The complete report is available only in Swedish.

SBU Alert is a service provided by SBU in collaboration with the Medical Products Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

References

  1. A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997;337(22):1576-83.
  2. Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS et al. Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS): a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. Circulation 2000;101(11):1297-302.
  3. Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Ruppel R. Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). Circulation 2000;102(7):748-54.
  4. Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R, Schron EB, Kuck KH, Zipes DP et al. Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg. Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. Eur Heart J 2000;21(24):2071-8.
  5. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H et al. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335(26):1933-40.
  6. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS et al. For the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II Investigators. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2002;346(12):877-83.
  7. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999;341(25):1882-90.
  8. Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P, Roberts RS, Hampton JR, Hatala R et al; DINAMIT Investigators. Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2004;351(24):2481-8.
  9. Bigger JT Jr. Prophylactic use of implanted cardiac defibrillators in patients at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias after coronary-artery bypass graft surgery. Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997;337(22):1569-75.
  10. Bansch D, Antz M, Boczor S, Volkmer M, Tebbenjohanns J, Seidl K et al. Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: the Cardiomyopathy Trial (CAT). Circulation 2002;105(12):1453-8.
  11. Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG, Frumin HI, Schuger CD, Beau SL et al; AMIOVIRT Investigators. Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia-AMIOVIRT. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41(10):1707-12.
  12. Kadish A, Dyer A, Daubert JP, Quigg R, Estes NA, Anderson KP et al; Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation (DEFINITE) Investigators. Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 2004;350(21):2151-8.
  13. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T et al; Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2004;350(21):2140-50.
  14. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R et al; Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352(3):225-37.
  15. Nanthakumar K, Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, Lee DS. Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a pooled analysis of 10 primary prevention trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44(11):2166-72.
  16. Rosenqvist M, Beyer T, Block M, den Dulk K, Minten J, Lindemans F. Adverse events with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a prospective multicenter study. European 7219 Jewel ICD investigators. Circulation 1998;98(7):663-70.
  17. Dorian P, Philippon F, Thibault B, Kimber S, Sterns L, Greene M et al; ASTRID Investigators. Randomized controlled study of detection enhancements versus rate-only detection to prevent inappropriate therapy in a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Heart Rhythm 2004;1(5):540-7.
  18. Swedberg K, Cleland J, Dargie H, Drexler H, Follath F, Komajda M et al; Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26(11):1115-40.
  19. Salukhe TV, Dimopoulos K, Sutton R, Coats AJ, Piepoli M, Francis DP. Life-years gained from defibrillator implantation: markedly nonlinear increase during 3 years of follow-up and its implications. Circulation 2004;109(15):1848-53.
  20. OBrien BJ. Cost effectiveness of ICD therapy: a review of published evidence. Can J Cardiol 2000;16(10):1307-12. Review.
  21. OBrien BJ, Connolly SJ, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, Willan A, Yee R et al. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS). Circulation 2001;103(10):1416-21.
  22. Sheldon R, OBrien BJ, Blackhouse G, Goeree R, Mitchell B, Klein G et al. Effect of clinical risk stratification on cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: the Canadian implantable defibrillator study. Circulation 2001;104(14):1622-6.
  23. Larsen G, Hallstrom A, McAnulty J, Pinski S, Olarte A, Sullivan S et al. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator versus antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias: results of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) economic analysis substudy. Circulation 2002;105(17):2049-57.
  24. Mushlin AI, Hall WJ, Zwanziger J, Gajary E, Andrews M, Marron R et al. The cost-effectiveness of automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators: results from MADIT. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial. Circulation 1998;97(21):2129-35.
  25. Al-Khatib SM, Anstrom KJ, Eisenstein EL, Peterson ED, Jollis JG, Mark DB et al. Clinical and economic implications of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II. Ann Intern Med 2005;142(8):593-600.
  26. Zwanziger J, Hall WJ, Dick AW, Zhao H, Mushlin AI, Hahn RM et al. The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47(11):2310-8.
  27. Chen L, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness of primary implanted cardioverter defibrillator for sudden death prevention in congestive heart failure. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2004;18(2):161-70.
  28. Mark DB, Nelson CL, Anstrom KJ, Al-Khatib SM, Tsiatis AA, Cowper PA et al. Cost-effectiveness of defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in chronic stable heart failure: results from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Circulation 2006;114(2):135-42.
  29. Sanders GD, Hlatky MA, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. N Engl J Med 2005;353(14):1471-80.
  30. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determination, Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for arrhythmias (issue date: January 2006). Technology Appraisal 95.
Download summary

SBU Assessment presents a comprehensive, systematic assessment of available scientific evidence. The certainty of the evidence for each finding is systematically reviewed and graded. Full assessments include economic, social, and ethical impact analyses.

SBU assessments are performed by a team of leading professional practitioners and academics, patient/user representatives and SBU staff. Prior to approval and publication, assessments are reviewed by independent experts, SBU’s Scientific Advisory Committees and Board of Directors.

Published: 2/19/2003
Revised: 9/27/2006
Contact SBU: registrator@sbu.se
Report no: 2006-06
https://www.sbu.se/200606e
Page reviewed