section name header

Evidence summaries

Implantable Defibrillators Versus Medical Therapy for Cardiac Channelopathies

Implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) appears to reduce mortality compared to β-blocker therapy in the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest in people with Brugada syndrome. Level of evidence: "B"

The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding).

Summary

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 2 studies with a total of 86 subjects. Both studies included participants with Brugada syndrome who were randomized to implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) versus β-blocker therapy for secondary prevention for sudden cardiac death.

ICD therapy reduced mortality (0% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.83; 2 studies, n=86). There was no statistically significant difference in combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events (26% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.34; 2 studies, n=86). The rates of adverse events were higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise (28% with ICD versus 10% with medical therapy; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.44; 2 studies, n=86). For secondary outcomes, the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events was higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise and were driven entirely by appropriate ICD-termination of cardiac arrhythmias (26% with ICD versus 0% with medical therapy; RR 11.4, 95% CI 1.57 to 83.3; 2 trials, 86 participants). Approximately 25% of the ICD group experienced inappropriate ICD firing, all of which was corrected by device reprogramming. No data were available for quality of life or cost.

Clinical comments

Note

Date of latest search:

References

  • McNamara DA, Goldberger JJ, Berendsen MA et al. Implantable defibrillators versus medical therapy for cardiac channelopathies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(10):CD011168. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords