P182 Implantable cardioverter defibrillator in old age patients with cardiomyopathy : a meta-analysis and systematic review
Authors: Tokavanich N , Prasitlumkum N , Kittipibul V , Mongkonsritragoon W , Ariyachaipanich A 
Published: January 2020

Abstract

Introduction
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) showed benefit for primary prevention of death in cardiomyopathy, but still controversy in elderly.
We performed a systematic review and meta analysis to the benefit of AICD for primary prevention of death in patients age ≥ 65 with cardiomyopathy according to 2017 ACC/AHA guideline for the Management Ventricular Arrhythmias and 2015 ESC guideline for Management of Ventricular Arrythmias.

Method
We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS from inception to October 2018. Included studies with prospective and retrospective cohort design. Studies those compared all-cause mortality in elderly patients who has been implanted with AICD versus none. Data of each studies were combined with random effects model, subgroup analysis for each types of studies were done. All the results were reported in hazard ration (HR) and 95% confidence intervals.

Result
Nine studies from March 2002 to October 2018 were included in meta-analysis (Five randomized controlled trial and Four cohort studies) involving 20,656 patients. AICD implantation showed benefit in reduction of all-cause mortality in patients older than 65 years.( pooled hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.64 – 0.81, I2 = 56.3%),however pool hazard ratio from subgroup analysis with only randomized controlled trial did not demonstrate effectiveness of this intervention. (pooled hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 – 1, I2= 49.5%)

Conclusion
AICD could benefit in reduction of all-cause mortality in aged patients. However randomized controlled trial with larger population in this group is needed.
Clinical characteristics of studies Author Year Study type Total population Age of participant (year) Type of cardiomyopathy NYHA FC Median follow up ( months) Outcome definition Quality assessment Bias for RCT Mezu 2011 Prospective cohort 485 ≥ 80 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy II - III 12 All-cause mortality Newcastle - ottawa : Fair Kober (DANISH) 2016 Randomize controlled trial 393 ≥ 68 Non ischemic cardiomyopathy II - III 67.6 All-cause mortality Performance bias Chan 2009 Prospective cohort 852 ≥ 65 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy N/A 34 ± 16 All-cause mortality Newcastle - ottawa : Fair Kadish (DEFINITE) 2004 Randomize controlled trial 157 ≥ 65 Non ischemic cardiomyopathy I - III 29 ± 14.4 All-cause mortality Performance bias Bristow (COMPANION) 2004 Randomize controlled trial 853 ≥ 65 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy III - IV 16.5 All-cause mortality Performance bias Moss ( MADIT II) 2002 Randomize controlled trial 436 ≥ 70 Ischemic cardiomyopathy I - III 20 All-cause mortality Performance bias Groeneveld 2008 Prospective cohort 14250 ≥ 65 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy I - IV 24 All-cause mortality Newcastle - ottawa : Fair Bardy ( SCD HEFT) 2005 Randomize controlled trial 578 ≥ 65 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy II - III 45.5 All-cause mortality Performance bias Pokorney 2015 Retrospective cohort 852 ≥ 65 Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy IV 36 All-cause mortality Newcastle - ottawa : Fair
Abstract P182 Figure. Forest plot of elderly with AICD vs none