Abstract
AIMS: The HINODE study aimed to analyse rates of mortality, appropriately treated ventricular arrhythmias (VA), and heart failure in Japanese patients and compared with those in Western patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: After treatment decisions following contemporary practice in Japan, patients were prospectively enrolled into four cohorts: (i) internal cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), (ii) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillator (CRT-D), (iii) standard medical therapy ('non-device': ND), or (iv) pacing (indicated for CRT; received pacemaker or CRT pacing). Cohorts 1-3 required a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, a history of heart failure, and a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death based on two to five previously identified risk factors. Endpoint outcomes were adjudicated by the independent committees. ICD and CRT-D cohorts, considered as high-voltage (HV) cohorts, were pooled for Kaplan-Meier analysis and propensity-matched to Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT) arm B and C patients. The study enrolled 354 patients followed for 19.6 ± 6.5 months, with a minimum of 12 months. Propensity-matched HV cohorts showed comparable VA (P = 0.61) and mortality rates (P = 0.29) for HINODE and MADIT-RIT. The ND cohort presented a high crossover rate to ICD therapy (6.1%, n = 7/115), and the CRT-D cohort showed elevated mortality rates. The pacing cohort revealed that patients implanted with pacemakers had higher mortality (26.0%) than those with CRT-Pacing (8.4%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality and VA event rates of landmark trials are applicable to patients with primary prevention in Japan. Patients who did not receive guideline-indicated CRT devices had poor outcomes.