Dataset Information

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation.

Methods and results

We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality.

Conclusion

Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed.

SUBMITTER: Verstraelen TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8184225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with cardiac sarcoidosis are at increased risk of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation.ObjectiveWe tested the hypothesis that the wearable cardioverter defibrillator can be used to mitigate the risk of sudden cardiac death among cardiac sarcoidosis patients.MethodsA retrospective review of the commercial database identified cardiac sarcoidosis patients who wore the wearable cardioverter defibrillator. Evidence for cardiac sarcoidosis diagnosis as well as demographic, co-morbidity and left ventricular ejection fraction were provided by patient clinical records. Clinical data also included daily wearable cardioverter defibrillator wear, shock treatment and survival information.ResultsThe wearable cardioverter defibrillator was worn by 46 cardiac sarcoidosis patients, 24 (52%) male. The median age was 48 years and median left ventricular ejection fraction was 30%. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator was worn a median of 23.6 hours each day. There were 11 ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation episodes occurring in 10 (22%) patients. Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation occurred over a range of 1 to 79 days, median 24 days. First-shock success for conversion of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation was 100%. Patient survival 24 hours after shock treatment was 100%. Follow up to determine the reason for discontinuing wearable cardioverter defibrillator use indicated that among shocked patients 7 received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, 1 patient was admitted to the hospital ending in death 2 weeks after discontinuing wearable cardioverter defibrillator use, and 2 patients were lost to follow up. Among the not shocked patients, there were 16 who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator while 7 achieved improved left ventricular ejection fraction.ConclusionManagement of sudden cardiac death among cardiac sarcoidosis patients was aided by the wearable cardioverter defibrillator resulting in successful termination of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation upon delivery of shock.

Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac sarcoidosis (CS) predisposes to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in CS have been issued by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2014 and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society consortium in 2017. How well they discriminate high from low risk remains unknown.MethodsWe analyzed the data of 398 patients with CS detected in Finland from 1988 through 2017. All had clinical cardiac manifestations. Histological diagnosis was myocardial in 193 patients (definite CS) and extracardiac in 205 (probable CS). Patients with and without Class I or IIa ICD indications at presentation were identified, and subsequent occurrences of SCD (fatal or aborted) and sustained ventricular tachycardia were recorded, as were ICD indications emerging first on follow-up.ResultsOver a median of 4.8 years, 41 patients (10.3%) had fatal (n=8) or aborted (n=33) SCD, and 98 (24.6%) experienced SCD or sustained ventricular tachycardia as the first event. By the Heart Rhythm Society guideline, Class I or IIa ICD indications were present in 339 patients (85%) and absent in 59 (15%), of whom 264 (78%) and 30 (51%), respectively, received an ICD. Cumulative 5-year incidence of SCD was 10.7% (95% CI, 7.4%-15.4%) in patients with ICD indications versus 4.8% (95% CI, 1.2%-19.1%) in those without (χ2=1.834, P=0.176). The corresponding rates of SCD were 13.8% (95% CI, 9.1%-21.0%) versus 6.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-54.0%; χ2=0.814, P=0.367) in definite CS and 7.6% (95% CI, 3.8%-15.1%) versus 3.3% (95% CI, 0.5%-22.9%; χ2=0.680, P=0.410) in probable CS. In multivariable regression analysis, SCD was predicted by definite histological diagnosis (P=0.033) but not by Class I or IIa ICD indications (P=0.210). In patients without ICD indications at presentation, 5-year incidence of SCD, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and emerging Class I or IIa indications was 53% (95% CI, 40%-71%). By the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guideline, all patients with complete data (n=245) had Class I or IIa indications for ICD implantation.ConclusionsCurrent ICD guidelines fail to distinguish a truly low-risk group of patients with clinically manifest CS, the 5-year risk of SCD approaching 5% despite absent ICD indications. Further research is needed on prognostic factors, including the role of diagnostic histology. Meanwhile, all patients with CS presenting with clinical cardiac manifestations should be considered for an ICD implantation.