Long-Term Outcomes After ICD and CRT-D Implantation Following Cardiac Arrest: Insights From the German DEVICE Registry

f. Van Eetvelde (Lübeck)1, S. S. Popescu (Lübeck)1, J. Senges (Ludwigshafen am Rhein)2, M. Hochadel (Ludwigshafen am Rhein)3, L. Eckardt (Münster)4, N. C. Ewertsen (Berlin)5, T. Kleemann (Ludwigshafen am Rhein)6, C. Stellbrink (Bielefeld)7, R. R. Tilz (Lübeck)1
1Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Klinik für Rhythmologie Lübeck, Deutschland; 2Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland; 3Stiftung IHF Statistik Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland; 4Universitätsklinikum Münster Klinik für Kardiologie II - Rhythmologie Münster, Deutschland; 5Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban Klinik für Innere Medizin, Kardiologie und konservative Intensivmedizin Berlin, Deutschland; 6Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen gGmbH Medizinische Klinik B Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland; 7Universitätsklinikum OWL Klinik für Kardiologie und intern. Intensivmedizin Bielefeld, Deutschland

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds) are established therapies for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. While procedural safety and short-term outcomes have been well documented, data on long-term outcomes in routine clinical practice remain limited. We therefore evaluated procedural safety, treatment patterns and long-term outcomes in patients enrolled in the German DEVICE Registry.

Methods: The German DEVICE Registry is a prospective, multicenter, national registry including patients undergoing pacemaker, ICD or CRT-D/P implantation or device revision. In this analysis were included only patients undergoing ICD or CRT-D following cardiac arrest. Patients enrolled in DEVICE I (2007–2009) and DEVICE II (2011–2014) were contacted for long term follow-up from 2024 onwards, allowing assessment of long-term outcomes, including 10-year survival. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, complications, pharmacological therapy, and survival outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan–Meier methods.

Results: A total of 859 patients were included. During follow-up, 498 patients (58.0%) died and 361 (42.0%) remained alive. Kaplan–Meier estimated mortality was 7.9% at 1 year and 47.7% at 10 years, with a median survival of 67.4 months. Survivors were significantly younger at baseline (53 vs. 69 years, p<0.001), had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (46.5% vs. 37.2%, p<0.001), and less frequently had underlying organic heart disease. Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease were more prevalent among patients who died during follow-up. Procedural safety was high, with complications requiring intervention occurring in only 1.7% of patients and in-hospital mortality being rare (0.47%). Guideline-directed medical therapy was widely used, although mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and, at long-term follow-up, SGLT2 inhibitors appeared underutilized.

Conclusions: In this national real-world registry, ICD and CRT-D therapy demonstrated excellent procedural safety and substantial long-term survival despite a high-risk patient population. Long-term mortality was primarily associated with older age, comorbidities, and the severity of underlying cardiac disease rather than device-related factors. These findings provide important long-term evidence supporting ICD therapy in routine clinical practice and highlight opportunities for further optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy.