The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC (

Aims  The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results  We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). Conclusion  In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

AimsTherapy with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is established for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high risk patients. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy by analysing registry data from 14 centres in 11 European countries compiled between 2002 and 2014, with emphasis on outcomes in women who have been underrepresented in all trials.Methods and resultsRetrospective data of 14 local registries of primary prevention ICD implantations between 2002 and 2014 were compiled in a central database. Predefined primary outcome measures were overall mortality and first appropriate and first inappropriate shocks. A multivariable model enforcing a common hazard ratio for sex category across the centres, but allowing for centre-specific baseline hazards and centre specific effects of other covariates, was adjusted for age, the presence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy or a CRT-D, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25%. Of the 5033 patients, 957 (19%) were women. During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 16–55 months) 129 women (13%) and 807 men (20%) died (HR 0.65; 95% CI: [0.53, 0.79], P-value < 0.0001). An appropriate ICD shock occurred in 66 women (8%) and 514 men (14%; HR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47–0.79; P = 0.0002).ConclusionOur retrospective analysis of 14 local registries in 11 European countries demonstrates that fewer women than men undergo ICD implantation for primary prevention. After multivariate adjustment, women have a significantly lower mortality and receive fewer appropriate ICD shocks.

No abstract