BACKGROUND: Screening echocardiography (ECHO) is commonly performed to determine whether the patient's left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is appropriate for primary prophylactic implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) referral. However, radionuclide ventriculography (RNA) is used by many implantation centres for decision making. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether current screening ECHO techniques are effective in identifying patients suitable for primary prophylactic ICD referral. METHODS: Correlation, sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LRs) of semiquantitative and numerical quantitative ECHO LVEFs were calculated for predicting RNA LVEFs that met implantation criteria (LVEF less than 30% and less than 35%). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among 193 patients, the LRs for a semiquantitative ECHO predicting an RNA LVEF of less than 30% (negative LR was 0.21 to 0.69 and positive LR was 1.22 to 2.83) or RNA LVEF of less than 35% (negative LR was 0.24 to 0.73 and positive LR was 1.33 to 3.46) demonstrated that current screening ECHO techniques are ineffective. However, the positive predictive value of grade 4 ECHO was 93.0%, suggesting that these patients may not require further LVEF investigation before implantation. Among 102 patients, current quantitative ECHO techniques did not improve the screening characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Current screening ECHO techniques may not be adequate for screening patients for consideration of a primary prophylactic ICD, but a grade 4 ECHO finding has a high positive predictive value in meeting implantation LVEF criteria. Improved screening standards should increase the number of patients referred with appropriate LVEF for primary prophylactic ICD implantation.
BACKGROUND: Screening echocardiography (ECHO) is commonly performed to determine whether the patient's left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is appropriate for primary prophylactic implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) referral. However, radionuclide ventriculography (RNA) is used by many implantation centres for decision making. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether current screening ECHO techniques are effective in identifying patients suitable for primary prophylactic ICD referral. METHODS: Correlation, sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LRs) of semiquantitative and numerical quantitative ECHO LVEFs were calculated for predicting RNA LVEFs that met implantation criteria (LVEF less than 30% and less than 35%). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among 193 patients, the LRs for a semiquantitative ECHO predicting an RNA LVEF of less than 30% (negative LR was 0.21 to 0.69 and positive LR was 1.22 to 2.83) or RNA LVEF of less than 35% (negative LR was 0.24 to 0.73 and positive LR was 1.33 to 3.46) demonstrated that current screening ECHO techniques are ineffective. However, the positive predictive value of grade 4 ECHO was 93.0%, suggesting that these patients may not require further LVEF investigation before implantation. Among 102 patients, current quantitative ECHO techniques did not improve the screening characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Current screening ECHO techniques may not be adequate for screening patients for consideration of a primary prophylactic ICD, but a grade 4 ECHO finding has a high positive predictive value in meeting implantation LVEF criteria. Improved screening standards should increase the number of patients referred with appropriate LVEF for primary prophylactic ICD implantation.
Authors: Anthony S Tang; Heather Ross; Christopher S Simpson; L Brent Mitchell; Paul Dorian; Ron Goeree; Barry Hoffmaster; Malcolm Arnold; Mario Talajic Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Anthony J Sanfilippo; David Bewick; K L Chan; Bibiana Cujec; J G Dumesnil; George Honos; Brad Munt; Zion Sasson; James Tam; Charles Tomlinson; Ayman Aboguddah; Shaheeda Ahmed; Mohamed Ali; Marie Arsenault; Kathryn Ascah; Tom Ashton; Michael Baird; Arsene Basmadjian; Francois Beique; Michael Blakeley; Marie-Josee Blais; Gary Burggraf; Ian Burwash; Jessica Cochrane; Susan Fagan; Peter Giannoccaro; William Hughes; Alan Jones; John Jue; Chris Koilpillai; Marie-Helene Leblanc; Colleen Londry; Dennis Morgan; Michael O'Reilly; Corey Sawchuk; Samuel Siu; Randy Sochowski; Guy Tremblay; Lisa Welikovitch; Eric Yu Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: N van Royen; C C Jaffe; H M Krumholz; K M Johnson; P J Lynch; D Natale; P Atkinson; P Deman; F J Wackers Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1996-04-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eric H c Yu; Danny M Skyba; Cairrine E Sloggett; Michal Jamorski; R Mark Iwanochko; Bryan F Dias; Harry Rakowski; Samuel C Siu Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Andrew D Krahn; Jeffrey S Hoch; Marie Antoinette Rockx; Peter Leong-Sit; Lorne J Gula; Raymond Yee; Allan C Skanes; George J Klein Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-07-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Subodh B Joshi; Kim A Connelly; Laura Jimenez-Juan; Mark Hansen; Anish Kirpalani; Paul Dorian; Iqwal Mangat; Abdul Al-Hesayen; Andrew M Crean; Graham A Wright; Andrew T Yan; Howard Leong-Poi Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 5.364