METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes focus on feasibility measures of recruitment, retention, implementation and acceptability of the intervention. Secondary outcomes will include blood pressure, cognitive function, body composition and physical function (including muscle strength and gait speed). Adherence to the dietary intervention will be assessed through collection of biological samples, 24-hour recall and Food Frequency Questionnaire. A subgroup of participants will also complete postintervention focus groups to further explore the feasibility considerations of executing a larger trial, the ability of these individuals to make dietary changes and the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing these changes.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize reasons for ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant refusal by patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest (Improve SCA) in developing countries.

METHODS: A total of 1,097 subjects were included in this evaluation. At each follow-up visit (1, 3, 6, and 12 months), LV PCT and pacing impedance were measured using either manual or automated testing methods. Summary statistics for PCT and impedance values were obtained for implant and each scheduled follow-up visit for all lead models.

RESULTS: Average extended bipolar (LV electrode to right ventricular Coil) PCTs for the four LV SE pacing electrodes (LV1, LV2, LV3, and LV4) on the three shapes of the quadripolar LV leads were 1.06 ± 0.97 V, 1.38 ± 1.26 V, 1.51 ± 1.33 V, and 2.25 ± 1.63 V, respectively, at 0.5-ms pulse width. PCTs remained low and stable throughout the 12-month follow-up period.

METHODS: Patients who met the class I indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation according to guideline recommendations in 17 countries and regions underrepresented in previous trials were enrolled. Countries were stratified by the WHO regional classification. Patients were or were not implanted with an ICD at their discretion. The outcomes were all-cause mortality and SCD.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study was to determine whether patients with primary prevention (PP) indications with specific risk factors (1.5PP: syncope, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, premature ventricular contractions >10/h, and low ventricular ejection fraction <25%) are at a similar risk of life-threatening arrhythmias as patients with secondary prevention (SP) indications and to evaluate all-cause mortality rates in 1.5PP patients with and without devices.

METHODS: A total of 3889 patients were included in the analysis to evaluate ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation therapy and mortality rates. Patients were stratified as SP (n = 1193) and patients with PP indications. The PP cohort was divided into 1.5PP patients (n = 1913) and those without any 1.5PP criteria (n = 783). The decision to undergo ICD implantation was left to the patient and/or physician. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios.

RESULTS: Patients had predominantly nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The rate of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in 1.5PP patients was not equivalent (within 30%) to that in patients with SP indications (hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.57) but was higher than that in PP patients without any 1.5PP criteria (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.97) (P = .03). There was a 49% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality in ICD implanted 1.5PP patients. In addition, the number needed to treat to save 1 life over 3 years was 10.0 in the 1.5PP cohort vs 40.0 in PP patients without any 1.5PP criteria.

PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the mortality benefit in PP patients by guideline-indicated device type: ICD and CRT-D.

METHODS: Improve sudden cardiac arrest was a prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded multicenter trial that enrolled patients from regions where ICD utilization is low. PP patient's CRT-D or ICD eligibility was based upon the 2008 ACC/AHA/HRS and 2006 ESC guidelines. Mortality was assessed according to guideline-indicated device type comparing implanted and nonimplanted patients. Cox proportional hazards methods were used, adjusting for known factors affecting mortality risk.