Back to Index

  • MADIT-II Original
  • MADIT-II

    "Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection Fraction". The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002. 346(12):877-883.

    Contents


    1 Clinical Question
    2 Bottom Line
    3 Major Points
    4 Guidelines
    5 Design
    6 Population
    6.1 Inclusion Criteria
    6.2 Exclusion Criteria
    6.3 Baseline Characteristics
    7 Interventions
    8 Outcomes
    8.1 Primary Outcome
    9 Criticisms
    10 Funding
    11 Further Reading

    Clinical Question


    Does prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator improve survival among patients with a prior myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction?

    Bottom Line


    Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with prior myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.30 or less improves survival.

    Major Points




    Guidelines




    Design


    - Multicenter, randomized controlled trial
    - N=1232 patients with prior MI and ejection fraction ≤0.30
    - Intervention: Implantable defibrillator (n=742)
    - Control: Conventional medical therapy (n=490)
    - Primary outcome: Death from any cause
    - Follow-up: Average of 20 months

    Population


    Inclusion Criteria
    - Prior myocardial infarction
    - Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.30

    Exclusion Criteria
    - Contraindications for defibrillator
    - Recent MI or revascularization
    - Advanced non-cardiac diseases

    Baseline Characteristics
    - Similar between groups
    - Medication use at last follow-up was also comparable

    Interventions


    - Transvenous defibrillator implantation in the intervention group
    - Standard medical treatment in the control group

    Outcomes


    Primary Outcome
    - 19.8% mortality in conventional therapy group
    - 14.2% mortality in defibrillator group
    - Hazard ratio for death: 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.93; P=0.016)

    Criticisms


    - The incidence of heart failure requiring hospitalization was higher in the defibrillator group.
    - The cost and resource implications of widespread prophylactic implantation are substantial.

    Funding


    The study was supported by a research grant from Guidant to the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Some authors disclosed financial relationships with Guidant.

    Further Reading


    The trial publication and relevant additional literature involve advancements in the field of cardiac electrophysiology and criteria for defibrillator implantation post-MI.