Search

To propose a clinical prognostic index for death and heart failure in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy implanted with an ICD. This prospective study included 192 consecutive patients (age 68 ± 10) recruited from 2004 to 2009 and implanted with an ICD for MADIT II criteria. All patients performed 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring after discharge and common haematological samples. The prognostic index (PI) was built according to the formula: 120 - age + mean 24 h systolic blood pressure--(creatinine 9 10). Other variables were assessed: EF, haemoglobin concentration, mean 24 h heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, sodium level, pacing mode and diabetes. Non-arrhythmic cardiac death and new hospitalizations for heart failure during 1-year follow-up were the combined end point. A total of 48 events (25%) occurred during the follow-up: 7 cardiac deaths and 41 hospitalizations for acute heart failure. Cox proportional hazards model showed that PI was the only predictor of events (HR = 0.96; CI 95% 0.944–0.976, p < 0.0001). ROC curve showed that PI best cut-off was 144, with AUC 0.79, p < 0.0001; sensitivity 77%, specificity 74%, positive predictive value 50%, negative predictive value 90%. PI was predictive of events in a clinical setting where EF had no predictive value. PI works according to the rule ‘‘the lower the worse’’. The high negative predictive value (90%) of PI allows to identify subjects at lower risk for death and heart failure. PI can be a practical tool to stratify risk in ischemic cardiomyopathy.

For more than 200 years digitalis has been considered of paramount importance in the treatment of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The IN-CHF Italian registry shows that prescriptions were reduced from 63.3% in the period 1995-1999 to 40% in the period 2000-2005, a very different trend compared to prescriptions of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor antagonists, and beta-blockers. The commercial value of digitalis is much lower than other drugs and it does not seem to be of interest for the pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, this is a logical trend in the business world. For many years the major indications of digitalis have been heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The most important study on efficacy of digitalis in the treatment of heart failure was the DIG trial (1997), which showed no difference in mortality when compared to placebo but significant beneficial effects in reducing hospital admission rates. Many post-hoc researches evaluated blood levels of digitalis and proved beneficial effects also on mortality when digoxinemia values were 0.5-0.9 ng/ml. In conclusion, digitalis should still be considered effective for the treatment of heart failure; therefore prescription modality as well as the range of normal values of digoxinemia should be updated.