PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15324610

Sudden Cardiac Death.

Abstract

Sudden cardiac death is often due to a ventricular arrhythmia. When a patient presents with a malignant arrhythmia unrelated to a transient reversible cause, there is a high probability of recurrent arrhythmia and sudden death. Clinical trials have shown a uniform survival benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of a malignant arrhythmia when compared with drug therapy. However, only 1% to 5% of patients survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, emphasizing the need for primary prevention of sudden death. Clinical trial data available in this regard are largely limited to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Mortality can be reduced by the ICD in patients with CAD and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 30%. If left ventricular function is only moderately depressed (LVEF between 30% and 40%), the presence of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia with inducible ventricular arrhythmia at electrophysiologic testing identifies patients who benefit from an ICD. The role of the ICD in primary prevention of sudden death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is less clear at this time. Preliminary data indicate that the presence of heart failure symptoms in this population increases risk of sudden death that can be prevented by an ICD. Antiarrhythmic drugs have little role in prevention of sudden death; however, drugs that block the effects of beta-adrenergic stimulation, angiotensin, and aldosterone reduce mortality partly through their salutary effects on sudden death. Finally, a number of inherited defects of genes coding for ion channels, contractile sarcomeric proteins, and cell-to-cell junction proteins can result in primary electrical abnormalities and sudden death. The ICD is effective for secondary prevention, but its role in primary prevention is controversial and should be based on individual risk factors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Roy M. John. 2004. Sudden Cardiac Death.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-004-0018-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗