BACKGROUND: In patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), the incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias resulting in ICD therapy is relatively low, prompting for better risk stratification. The aim of this study was to assess the value of the QRS-T angle for prediction of ICD therapy and mortality in primary prevention patients with ischemic heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: ICD patients (n=412, 361 men; age, 63+/-11 years) with ischemic heart disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40% were included. After device implantation, the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapy and mortality was noted. A survival analysis was performed comparing patients with a planar QRS-T angle < or = 90 degrees (n=124, 30%) with patients with a planar QRS-T angle >90 degrees before device implantation. Furthermore, patients with a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees (n=56, 14%) were compared with patients with a spatial QRS-T angle >100 degrees , before implantation. For patients with a planar QRS-T angle >90 degrees as compared with < or = 90 degrees , the adjusted hazard ratio for the occurrence of appropriate device therapy was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.2); a spatial QRS-T angle >100 degrees was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 7.3 (95% CI, 1.0 to 53.8). Furthermore, a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees exhibited a positive predictive value of 98% (95% CI, 95 to 100) for the prediction of an appropriate therapy-free follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A wide QRS-T angle is a strong predictor of appropriate device therapy in primary prevention ICD recipients with ischemic heart disease. Furthermore, a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees might be of value in the identification of patients in whom, although currently indicated, ICD treatment should be reconsidered.
BACKGROUND: In patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), the incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias resulting in ICD therapy is relatively low, prompting for better risk stratification. The aim of this study was to assess the value of the QRS-T angle for prediction of ICD therapy and mortality in primary prevention patients with ischemic heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS:ICDpatients (n=412, 361 men; age, 63+/-11 years) with ischemic heart disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40% were included. After device implantation, the occurrence of appropriate ICD therapy and mortality was noted. A survival analysis was performed comparing patients with a planar QRS-T angle < or = 90 degrees (n=124, 30%) with patients with a planar QRS-T angle >90 degrees before device implantation. Furthermore, patients with a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees (n=56, 14%) were compared with patients with a spatial QRS-T angle >100 degrees , before implantation. For patients with a planar QRS-T angle >90 degrees as compared with < or = 90 degrees , the adjusted hazard ratio for the occurrence of appropriate device therapy was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.2); a spatial QRS-T angle >100 degrees was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 7.3 (95% CI, 1.0 to 53.8). Furthermore, a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees exhibited a positive predictive value of 98% (95% CI, 95 to 100) for the prediction of an appropriate therapy-free follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A wide QRS-T angle is a strong predictor of appropriate device therapy in primary prevention ICD recipients with ischemic heart disease. Furthermore, a spatial QRS-T angle < or = 100 degrees might be of value in the identification of patients in whom, although currently indicated, ICD treatment should be reconsidered.
Authors: David G Strauss; Nathan Mewton; Richard L Verrier; Bruce D Nearing; Francis E Marchlinski; Tony Killian; John Moxley; Larisa G Tereshchenko; Katherine C Wu; Raimond Winslow; Christopher Cox; Peter M Spooner; João A C Lima Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2013-10-12
Authors: Jani T Tikkanen; Tuomas Kenttä; Kimmo Porthan; Heikki V Huikuri; M Juhani Junttila Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Zhu-ming Zhang; Pentti M Rautaharju; Ronald J Prineas; Laura Loehr; Wayne Rosamond; Elsayed Z Soliman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Senthil Selvaraj; Leonard Ilkhanoff; Michael A Burke; Benjamin H Freed; Roberto M Lang; Eva E Martinez; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Larisa G Tereshchenko; Esther D Kim; Andrew Oehler; Lucy A Meoni; Elyar Ghafoori; Tejal Rami; Maggie Maly; Muammar Kabir; Lauren Hawkins; Gordon F Tomaselli; Joao A Lima; Bernard G Jaar; Stephen M Sozio; Michelle Estrella; W H Linda Kao; Rulan S Parekh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Seth R Bender; Steven M Markowitz; Bruce B Lerman; Peter M Okin Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 1.468