Dataset Information

Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in congenital heart disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients can benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess left- and right-sided S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, use machine learning to predict S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, and transform 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to S-ICD 3-lead ECG, and vice versa.

Methods

ACHD outpatients (n = 101; age 42 ± 14 years; 52% female; 85% white; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 56% ± 9%) were enrolled in a prospective study. Supine and standing 12-lead ECG were recorded simultaneously with a right- and left-sided S-ICD 3-lead ECG. Peak-to-peak QRS and T amplitudes; RR, PR, QT, QTc, and QRS intervals; Tmax, and R/Tmax (31 predictor variables) were tested. Model selection, training, and testing were performed using supine ECG datasets. Validation was performed using standing ECG datasets and an out-of-sample non-ACHD population (n = 68; age 54 ± 16 years; 54% female; 94% white; LVEF 61% ± 8%).

Results

Forty percent of participants were ineligible for S-ICD. Tetralogy of Fallot patients passed right-sided screening (57%) more often than left-sided screening (21%; McNemar χ²P = .025). Female participants had greater odds of eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-21.7; P = .008). Validation of the ridge models was satisfactory for standing left-sided (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] 0.687; 95% CI 0.582-0.791) and right-sided (ROC AUC 0.655; 95% CI 0.549-0.762) S-ICD eligibility prediction. Validation of transformation matrices showed satisfactory agreement (<0.1 mV difference).

Conclusion

Nearly half of the contemporary ACHD population is ineligible for S-ICD. The odds of S-ICD eligibility are greater for female than for male ACHD patients. Machine learning prediction of S-ICD eligibility can be used for screening of S-ICD candidates.

SUBMITTER: Wang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7197388 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks on subsequent mortality.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether the arrhythmic substrate leading to ICD therapy or the therapy itself increases mortality.MethodsThe study cohort included 5,516 ICD recipients who were enrolled in 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, RAID). The authors evaluated the association of device therapy with subsequent mortality in 4 separate time-dependent models: model I, type of ICD therapy; model II, type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered; model III, combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up; and model IV, incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks.ResultsWhen analyzed by the type of ICD therapy (model I), a first appropriate ICD shock was associated with increased risk of subsequent mortality with or without concomitant occurrence of inappropriate shock during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.78 and 2.31; p < 0.001 and p = 0.12), whereas inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk (HR: 1.23; p = 0.42). Similarly, ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (model II) was associated with increased risk of death with or without concomitant therapy for VT <200 beats/min (HRs: 2.25 and 2.62; both p < 0.001), whereas appropriate therapy for VT <200 beats/min or inappropriate therapy (regardless of etiology) did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.10). Combined assessment of all therapy and arrhythmia types during follow-up (model III) showed that appropriate ICD shocks for VF, shocks for fast VT (≥200 beats/min) without prior antitachycardia pacing (ATP), as well as shocks for fast VT delivered after failed ATP, were associated with the highest risk of subsequent death (HR: all >2.8; p < 0.001). Finally, 2 or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with incremental risk to the first appropriate ICD shock (model IV).ConclusionThe combined data from 5 landmark ICD trials suggest that the underlying arrhythmic substrate rather than the ICD therapy is the more important determinant of mortality in ICD recipients.