BACKGROUND: The selection of patients for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. AIM: To determine the optimum left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) dichotomy limit for ICD treatment in patients with a history of MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the placebo arms of four randomised trials were pooled to create a cohort of 2828 patients (2206 men, mean (SD) age 65 (11) years) with reduced left ventricular function after MI. The median LVEF was 33% (range 6-40%). LVEF significantly predicted mortality. Each 10% reduction in LVEF <40% conferred a 42% increase in all-cause mortality, a 39% increase in arrhythmic cardiac mortality and a 49% increase in non-arrhythmic cardiac mortality over the 2-year period of follow-up (p<0.001 for all modes of mortality). As the LVEF progressively decreased from < or =40% to < or =10%, the data show a U-shaped relationship between the dichotomy limit for LVEF used and the number of patients who must be treated to prevent one arrhythmic death in 2 years. At an LVEF of 16-20%, more patients are likely to die from arrhythmic than non-arrhythmic cardiac deaths, whereas in those with LVEF < or =10% all deaths were non-arrhythmic. However, the total number of deaths substantially decreased with lower LVEF. CONCLUSION: A trade-off exists between the sensitivity and positive predictive accuracy across a range of LVEF, and no single dichotomy limit is completely satisfactory. In patients with LVEF < or =10% ICD treatment was not beneficial as all patients in this subgroup died from non-arrhythmic causes. The use of a single dichotomy limit for LVEF alone is not sufficient in selecting patients for ICD treatment in the primary prevention of cardiac arrest.
BACKGROUND: The selection of patients for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. AIM: To determine the optimum left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) dichotomy limit for ICD treatment in patients with a history of MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the placebo arms of four randomised trials were pooled to create a cohort of 2828 patients (2206 men, mean (SD) age 65 (11) years) with reduced left ventricular function after MI. The median LVEF was 33% (range 6-40%). LVEF significantly predicted mortality. Each 10% reduction in LVEF <40% conferred a 42% increase in all-cause mortality, a 39% increase in arrhythmic cardiac mortality and a 49% increase in non-arrhythmic cardiac mortality over the 2-year period of follow-up (p<0.001 for all modes of mortality). As the LVEF progressively decreased from < or =40% to < or =10%, the data show a U-shaped relationship between the dichotomy limit for LVEF used and the number of patients who must be treated to prevent one arrhythmic death in 2 years. At an LVEF of 16-20%, more patients are likely to die from arrhythmic than non-arrhythmic cardiac deaths, whereas in those with LVEF < or =10% all deaths were non-arrhythmic. However, the total number of deaths substantially decreased with lower LVEF. CONCLUSION: A trade-off exists between the sensitivity and positive predictive accuracy across a range of LVEF, and no single dichotomy limit is completely satisfactory. In patients with LVEF < or =10% ICD treatment was not beneficial as all patients in this subgroup died from non-arrhythmic causes. The use of a single dichotomy limit for LVEF alone is not sufficient in selecting patients for ICD treatment in the primary prevention of cardiac arrest.
Authors: A L Waldo; A J Camm; H deRuyter; P L Friedman; D J MacNeil; J F Pauls; B Pitt; C M Pratt; P J Schwartz; E P Veltri Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-07-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James P Daubert; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Claudio Schuger; Andrew Corsello; Angel R Leon; Mark L Andrews; Scott McNitt; David T Huang; Arthur J Moss Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L Køber; C Torp-Pedersen; J E Carlsen; H Bagger; P Eliasen; K Lyngborg; J Videbaek; D S Cole; L Auclert; N C Pauly Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Gillian D Sanders; Paul A Heidenreich; Kathryn M McDonald; Mark A Hlatky Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Henry Greenberg; Robert B Case; Arthur J Moss; Mary W Brown; Elizabeth R Carroll; Mark L Andrews Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ryan Chow; Javad Hashemi; Sami Torbey; Johnny Siu; Benedict Glover; Adrian M Baranchuk; Hoshiar Abdollah; Christopher Simpson; Selim Akl; Damian P Redfearn Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Rikke Mørch Jørgensen; Steen Z Abildstrøm; Jacob Levitan; Roi Kobo; Natalia Puzanov; Meir Lewkowicz; Heikki Huikuri; Mirja Peltola; Jens Haarbo; Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Achim Leo Burger; Stefan Stojkovic; André Diedrich; Svitlana Demyanets; Johann Wojta; Thomas Pezawas Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 3.625
Authors: M van Barreveld; M G W Dijkgraaf; M Hulleman; L V A Boersma; P P H M Delnoy; M Meine; A E Tuinenburg; D A M J Theuns; P H van der Voort; G P Kimman; E Buskens; J P G Tijssen; N Bruinsma; T E Verstraelen; A H Zwinderman; P H F M van Dessel; A A M Wilde Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Hein J J Wellens; Peter J Schwartz; Fred W Lindemans; Alfred E Buxton; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Stefan H Hohnloser; Heikki V Huikuri; Stefan Kääb; Maria Teresa La Rovere; Marek Malik; Robert J Myerburg; Maarten L Simoons; Karl Swedberg; Jan Tijssen; Adriaan A Voors; Arthur A Wilde Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 29.983