Mortality, XXXX and indication for cardioverter defibrillator implantation in a dialysis population.

@entity1 @entity944 @entity737 @entity204 @entity703
BACKGROUND: The incidence of @entity944 among dialysis @entity1 is high, but end @entity703 was an exclusion criterion in the trials that demonstrated the benefit of @entity737 ( @entity737 ) for @entity944 prevention. METHODS: Dialysis @entity1 alive on January 2010 or starting dialysis between January 2010 and January 2013 were enrolled and retrospectively evaluated. @entity1 were divided into three groups: No-Indication, Indication-With @entity737 and Indication-Without @entity737 . Cox and Fine and Gray regression models were used to estimate the total and cause-specific (sudden or non-sudden) mortality hazard ratio (HR, HRcpRisk), respectively. Survival was defined as the time from start of dialysis to the time of @entity204 . RESULTS: 154/2072 @entity1 (7.4%) had indication for @entity737 implantation and 52 (33.8%) of them received the device; 688 (33.2%) deaths were recorded. Mortality was different among groups [Indication-With @entity737 vs No-Indication: HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.06-2.38) and Indication-Without @entity737 vs No-Indication: HR 2.67 (95% CI 2.09-3.39, p<0.001)]. 84/688 (12.2%) were @entity944 . The cumulative incidence of @entity944 was higher in @entity1 with @entity737 indication [Indication-With @entity737 vs No-Indication HRcpRisk 3.21 (95% CI 1.38-7.40) and Indication-Without @entity737 vs No-Indication: HRcpRisk 4.19 (95% CI 2.38-7.39), p<0.001], but also No-Indication @entity1 showed a high rate of @entity944 [8.5% (95% CI.6.5-10.9) at 8years of follow-up]. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis @entity1 with @entity737 indication had a worse survival than No-Indication subjects and the prognosis was particularly poor for the Indication-Without @entity737 group. @entity944 incidence was much higher than in the general population, even among No-Indication subjects.
