Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 17;19:146. doi: 10.1186/s12872-019-1121-4

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics in the 4P-study

SC-ICD (N = 48) DC-ICD (N = 50) CRT-D (N = 98) All patients (N = 196) p value
Patient demographics and clinical presentation
 Male (%) 81 88 84 84 0.645
 Age (years ± SD) 59 ± 13 63 ± 14 68 ± 11 64 ± 13 0.0012
 LVEF (% ± SD) 44 ± 14 42 ± 14 31 ± 10 36 ± 13 < 0.0011,2
 QRS (ms ± SD) 107 ± 26 112 ± 30 143 ± 35 126 ± 36 < 0.0011,2
 Secondary prevention (%) 58 48 17 35 < 0.0011,2
 Device replacement or upgrade (%) 63 41 61 56 0.039
 NYHA functional class (%)
  I 17 18 10 14 < 0.0011,2
  II 19 24 50 34
  III 6 8 39 21
  IV 2 0 1 1
Underlying cardiac disease (%)
 Ischemic heart disease, leading diagnosis 60 66 58 61 0.652
 CABG 21 18 30 25 0.239
 PCI 27 44 37 36 0.217
 Cardiomyopathy, other 25 26 27 26 0.668
Arrhythmia and conduction defects (%)
 Non permanent atrial fibrillation 15 24 31 25 0.108
 Atrial tachycardia 4 14 10 10 0.251
 Ventricular fibrillation 27 12 13 16 0.066
 Ventricular tachycardia (sustained) 25 34 8 19 0.0031,2
 Ventricular tachycardia (non-sustained) 21 26 16 20 0.372
 AV-block 10 10 28 19 0.0082
Medication (%)
 Beta-blocker 91 85 90 89 0.333
 Calcium channel blocker 18 11 6 10 0.129
 Digoxin 0 2 13 7 0.0042
 Anti-arrhythmics 25 34 29 29 0.599
  of which amiodarone 14 28 25 23 0.187
Implantation type (%)
 New 38 59 39 44 < 0.0011,2
 Replacement 62 37 33 41
 Upgrade 0 4 28 15

Significant post-hoc comparisons are indicated as: 1 SC-ICD vs CRT-D; 2 DC-ICD vs CRT-D