Use of beta-blockers in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator
- PMID: 19567655
- DOI: 10.1345/aph.1M140
Use of beta-blockers in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator
Abstract
Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are indicated for both primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest. beta-Blockers are also indicated in most patients who have an indication for an ICD; however, their use in this population is not well described. Some clinicians may be unaware of the recommendation for beta-blockers in this population.
Objective: To explore beta-blocker use among ICD recipients.
Methods: Adults who received their first ICD at Duke Hospital between July 1999 and July 2004 for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest were identified. Using hospital data, beta-blocker use was determined at time of discharge, and characteristics of users were compared with those of nonusers. Continued use of beta-blockers after ICD implant was explored in the subset of patients included in the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease (DDCD).
Results: The study cohort comprised 804 patients, 652 (81%) with ICD for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest and 152 (19%) for primary prevention. The median age was 65 years and 75% of the patients were men. A total of 544 (68%) received a beta-blocker at time of ICD implant. There were no substantial changes in the proportion of patients with beta-blocker use from 1999 through 2004, overall or within the primary or secondary prevention groups. However, beta-blocker use was higher in the secondary prevention group than in the primary prevention group (69% vs 60%; p = 0.02). A higher proportion of beta-blocker users versus nonusers had ischemic heart disease (82% vs 68%; p < 0.0001), heart failure (84% vs 71%; p < 0.0001), previous myocardial infraction (51% vs 44%; p = 0.05), and ventricular arrhythmias (82% vs 76%; p = 0.04). Of the 425 patients included in the DDCD, only 241 (57%) were receiving beta-blockers at time of implant and during clinical follow-up.
Conclusions: Lower than optimal use of beta-blockers suggests the need for new methods of including evidence-based medications in clinical practice, especially for complex patients for whom numerous clinical practice guidelines may apply.
Similar articles
-
A comparison of outcomes for patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary vs secondary-prevention.Conn Med. 2008 Jun-Jul;72(6):329-33. Conn Med. 2008. PMID: 18610705
-
Predictors of appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in primary prevention patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010 Mar;33(3):320-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02566.x. Epub 2009 Oct 1. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010. PMID: 19796352
-
The role of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary vs secondary prevention of sudden death in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.Europace. 2004 Sep;6(5):400-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eupc.2004.04.009. Europace. 2004. PMID: 15294264
-
Appropriate evaluation and treatment of heart failure patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharge: time to go beyond the initial shock.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Nov 24;54(22):1993-2000. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.039. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009. PMID: 19926003 Review.
-
Atrial tachyarrhythmias in primary and secondary prevention ICD recipients: clinical and prognostic data.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006 Dec;29 Suppl 2:S48-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00489.x. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006. PMID: 17169133 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
