Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Rationale and design of the comparative effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs non-ICD therapy in contemporary heart failure patients at a low risk for arrhythmic death (CONTEMP-ICD) trial
Study context
- Population
- Participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are treated with optimal stable GDMT and are eligible for a primary prevention ICD, but have a lower predicted risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) than nonarrhythmic mortalityenrolling (planned enrolment), average follow-up 3.5 years
- Participants
- 3,290 participants
- Planned comparison
- non-ICD vs ICD
- Primary endpoint
- All-cause mortality (hypothesis: non-ICD vs ICD noninferior)
- Follow-up
- Average 3.5 years
Methodological detailsrationale and design
- Rationale and design
No results yet. This paper sets out the design of a trial; its results are to come.
Further findings
Survival free of major CV events (secondary endpoint; hypothesis: non-ICD vs ICD superior)
- Design paper; no results reported
Original publication
Rationale and design of the comparative effectiveness of ICD vs non-ICD therapy in contemporary heart failure patients at a low risk for arrhythmic death (CONTEMP-ICD) trial. Am Heart J. Published 4 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →