Dataset Information

The relationship between baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction with adverse events among primary prevention ICD patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is used to select patients for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The relationship between baseline and long-term follow-up LVEF and clinical outcomes among primary prevention ICD patients remains unclear. METHODS:We studied 195 patients with a baseline LVEF ?35% ?6 months prior to ICD implantation and follow-up LVEF 1-3 years after ICD implantation without intervening left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or transplant. The co-primary study endpoints were: (1) a composite of time to death, LVAD, or transplant and (2) appropriate ICD therapy. We examined multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a 3-year post-implant landmark view; the LVEF closest to the 3-year mark was considered the follow-up LVEF for analyses. Follow-up LVEF was examined using 2 definitions: (1) ?10% improvement compared to baseline or (2) actual value of ?40%. RESULTS:Fifty patients (26%) had a LVEF improvement of ?10% and 44 (23%) had a follow-up LVEF ?40%. Neither baseline nor follow-up LVEF was significantly associated with the composite endpoint. In contrast, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were associated with risk for long-term ICD therapies, whether follow-up LVEF was modeled as a ?10% absolute improvement (baseline LVEF HR 0.87, CI 0.91-0.93, P < .001; follow-up LVEF HR 0.18, CI 0.06-0.53, P = .002) or a ?40% follow-up value (baseline LVEF HR 0.89, CI 0.83-0.96, P = .001, follow-up LVEF HR 0.26, CI 0.08-0.87, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS:Among primary prevention ICD recipients, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were independently associated with long-term risk for appropriate ICD therapy, but they were not associated with time to the composite of LVAD, transplant, or death.

SUBMITTER: Friedman DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6309220 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The relationship between baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction with adverse events among primary prevention ICD patients.

Friedman Daniel J DJ Fudim Marat M Overton Robert R Shaw Linda K LK Patel Divyang D Pokorney Sean D SD Velazquez Eric J EJ Al-Khatib Sana M SM

American heart journal 20180404

<h4>Background</h4>Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is used to select patients for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The relationship between baseline and long-term follow-up LVEF and clinical outcomes among primary prevention ICD patients remains unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>We studied 195 patients with a baseline LVEF ≤35% ≤6 months prior to ICD implantation and follow-up LVEF 1-3 years after ICD implantation without intervening left ventricular assist devi ...[more]

PMID: 29910051

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Project description:Background Heart failure ( HF ) with "recovered" ejection fraction ( HF rec EF ) is an emerging phenotype, but no tools exist to predict ejection fraction ( EF ) recovery in acute HF . We hypothesized that indices of baseline cardiac structure and function predict HF rec EF in nonischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced EF . Methods and Results We identified a nonischemic cardiomyopathy cohort with EF <40% during the first HF hospitalization (n=166). We performed speckle-tracking echocardiography to measure longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain, and the average of these measures (myocardial systolic performance). HF rec EF was defined as follow-up EF ≥40% and ≥10% improvement from baseline EF . Fifty-nine patients (36%) achieved HF rec EF (baseline EF 26±7%; follow-up EF 51±7%) within a median of 135 (interquartile range 58-239) days after the first HF hospitalization. Baseline demographics, biomarker profiles, and comorbid conditions (except lower chronic kidney disease in HF rec EF ) were similar between HF rec EF and persistent reduced- EF groups. HF rec EF patients had smaller baseline left ventricular end-systolic dimension (3.6 versus 4.8 cm; P<0.01), higher baseline myocardial systolic performance (9.2% versus 8.1%; P=0.02), and improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.62). We found a significant interaction between baseline left ventricular end-systolic dimension and absolute longitudinal strain. Among patients with left ventricular end-systolic dimension >4.35 cm, higher absolute longitudinal strain (≥8%) was associated with HF rec EF (unadjusted odds ratio=3.9, 95% CI )confidence interval 1.2, 12.8). Incorporation of baseline indices of cardiac mechanics with clinical variables resulted in a predictive model for HF rec EF with c-statistic=0.85. Conclusions Factors associated with achieving HF rec EF were specific to cardiac structure and indices of cardiac mechanics. Higher baseline absolute longitudinal strain is associated with HF rec EF among nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients with reduced EF and larger left ventricular dimensions.

Project description:Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is a common cause of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis. The purpose of this study was to noninvasively evaluate changes in segmental LV extracellular volume (ECV) fraction, LV velocities, myocardial scar, and wall motion in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients.Cardiac MRI including pre- and postcontrast myocardial T1 mapping and velocity quantification (tissue phase mapping) of the LV (basal, midventricular, and apical short axis) was applied in 31 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (50±18 years). Analysis based on the 16-segment American Heart Association model was used to evaluate the segmental distribution of ECV, peak systolic and diastolic myocardial velocities, scar determined by late gadolinium enhancement, and wall motion abnormalities. LV segments with scar or impaired wall motion were significantly associated with elevated ECV (rs =0.26; P<0.001) and reduced peak systolic radial velocities (r=-0.43; P<0.001). Regional myocardial velocities and ECV were similar for patients with reduced (n=12; ECV=0.28±0.06) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=19; ECV=0.30±0.09). Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant relationships between increasing ECV and reduced systolic (r=-0.19; r=-0.30) and diastolic (r=0.34; r=0.26) radial and long-axis peak velocities (P<0.001). Even after excluding myocardial segments with late gadolinium enhancement, significant relationships between ECV and segmental LV velocities were maintained indicating the potential of elevated ECV to identify regional diffuse fibrosis not visible by late gadolinium enhancement, which was associated with impaired regional LV function.Regionally elevated ECV negatively affected myocardial velocities. The association of elevated regional ECV with reduced myocardial velocities independent of left ventricular ejection fraction suggests a structure-function relationship between altered ECV and segmental myocardial function in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Project description:ImportancePatients categorized as having heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the midrange between 40% and 50% (HFmrEF) are known to be at increased risk of future events. Although patients can transition into the midrange through either improvement or deterioration in their LVEF, there is limited information available assessing the association of directional change in LVEF with future events. Understanding the association between change in LVEF and the clinical course of patients with HFmrEF would be of value in guiding management strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether risk of clinical events experienced by patients with HFmrEF varies according to whether LVEF improved or deteriorated into the range of 40% to 50% from previous measurements.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients were identified from the electronic health records at the UC San Diego Health System who had an LVEF measured between 40% and 50% on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed during the calendar year of 2015 and who also had at least 1 prior TTE for comparison. The clinical course of these patients was then followed from the time of the index TTE through December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to March 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, and each of the individual components.ResultsOf the 448 patients who were identified with HFmrEF, 278 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 67.4 (9.7) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from less than 40% in 157 patients (35.0%), deteriorated from greater than 50% in 224 patients (50.0%), and remained between 40% and 50% over time in 67 patients (15.0%). Compared with patients whose LVEF improved from less than 40% to midrange levels, patients whose LVEF deteriorated from greater than 50% had higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.50; P = .02), and these differences persisted after multivariable analysis. Outcomes did not differ significantly between patients whose LVEF improved and those in whom it remained stable.Conclusion and relevanceIn a cohort of patients with HFmrEF from a large academic medical center, the clinical course was strongly influenced by the directional change in LVEF from prior study. Patients whose LVEF deteriorated into midrange levels experienced a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical events than patients whose LVEF had improved. These results suggest that directional change in LVEF from prior measurements should be considered when devising management strategies for patients with HFmrEF.

Dataset Information

The relationship between baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction with adverse events among primary prevention ICD patients.

Publications

The relationship between baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction with adverse events among primary prevention ICD patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets