Outcomes of ICDs and CRTs in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of 21,000 patients
Shurrab M, Ko DT, Zayed Y, Navaneethan SD, Yadak N, Yaseen A, Kaoutskaia A, Qamhia W, Hamdan Z, Haj-Yahia S, Lee DS, Newman D, Healey JS, Harvey P, Crystal E. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018; 53(1):123-9. Epub 2018 Jul 30.
Purpose — The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to explore the association between ICD/CRT and mortality in CKD patients.
Methods — An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE. We included studies that reported outcomes of interest in CKD patients stratified by the presence of ICD, CRT, or none. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were pooled using random effects model. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
Results — The literature search resulted in 11 studies (observational studies) including 21,136 adult patients: seven studies compared ICD vs. no ICD and four studies compared CRT vs. ICD. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group in comparison to that in the no ICD group (OR 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45; 0.98), P = 0.04). Among dialysis-only patients, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group (OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38; 0.64), P < 0.001). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the CRT group in comparison to that in the ICD group (OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.57; 0.92), P = 0.01).
Conclusions — The use of ICDs is associated with lower all-cause mortality in observational studies of CKD patients. CRT use was also associated with lower all-cause mortality in CKD patients in comparison to ICDs. A randomized controlled trial is required to definitively define the role of ICDs/CRTs in CKD patients.