Search

Current guidelines have indicated an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for patients with severe idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, for both primary and secondary prevention. Compared to coronary artery disease, the overall benefit has been smaller. A more refined risk assessment, using the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and prevention mode (primary/secondary), is still needed to guide ICD implantation. Patients included in 2 large ICD registers were analyzed regarding the appropriate therapies and improvement of LVEF, overall and in subgroups of prevention mode and LVEF <20% versus >20%. Overall, 349 patients were included; 70% were men, the mean age was 54 years, and the mean follow-up was 33 months. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was used in 57%, and secondary prevention was present in 30%. ICD therapies were delivered to 33% of the patients, in most for ventricular tachycardia. Patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention and non-CRT were more likely to have arrhythmic events (both p <0.05). The cumulative event rates at 5 years were 53% for secondary and 33% for primary prevention (p <0.001). Depending on the prevention mode and LVEF status (<20% vs >20%), the event rates ranged from 30% to 76%. The mean LVEF improved by 10%, independently of the stimulation mode (CRT 22% to 31%, non-CRT 26% to 35%; p <0.0001). A persistent improvement to >35% was seen in only 25% of CRT patients but in 45% of non-CRT patients (p = 0.004). In conclusion, the results from the present study have demonstrated that in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, the potential for LVEF improvement is considerable and that the rate of ICD interventions strongly depends on the prevention mode and LVEF. These findings could be the basis for additional risk stratification tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) is a validated multivariate risk prediction model for mortality in patients with heart failure, using widely available clinical variables. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the SHFM when applied to patients with heart failure who received cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillation. A total of 413 patients were identified from 2 prospective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registries who received cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillation for the primary prevention of sudden death. Baseline laboratory and clinical data were entered in the SHFM to calculate predicted survival. The end point was all-cause mortality. During a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, 78 patients died and 9 underwent heart transplantation. Observed versus predicted 5-year mortality rates were 11.6% versus 11.4%, 21.5% versus 22.1%, and 41.4% versus 46.1% by ascending tertile of Seattle Heart Failure Score, respectively. No systematic or substantial errors of risk estimation were observed. Discrimination was excellent; the C-statistic ranged from 0.78 at 1-year follow-up to 0.70 at 5-year follow-up, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square statistic was 0.87 (p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients with heart failure who received cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillation, the SHFM offers adequate discrimination of risk for all-cause mortality and estimation of mortality risk without substantial or systematic errors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Several multivariate risk score models were developed to predict prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). We compared 3 models with regard to prediction of mortality in patients with HF who received an implantable defibrillator (ICD) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D), as primary prevention of sudden death. The study cohort consisted of 823 patients (ICD = 410; CRT-D = 413). The evaluated models were the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) score, and an adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI). End point was the performance of the models to predict all-cause mortality at 5 years. This was determined by c-statistics, for both subgroups. Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the relations between the risk score models, their individual components and mortality, and its applicability to the entire population. Cumulative mortality was 4.9% at 1 year and 21.1% at 5 years. Discriminatory power for 5-year mortality was highest for the SHFM (0.73; p <0.001) compared with the MADIT II score and the aCCI for the entire population. SHFM performed better than the MADIT II score for CRT-D group. In the entire population, the SHFM and the aCCI were significant predictors of mortality in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.43 vs hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.22). The strongest individual components were age, HF, impaired renal function, and cancer, whereas CRT-D use was no predictor. In conclusion, the SHFM has the best discriminatory power for 5-year mortality in patients with HF with an ICD or CRT-D. The aCCI and MADIT II scores are less powerful but viable alternatives., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)