Gabriel C Brooks1, Byron K Lee1, Rajni Rao1, Feng Lin2, Daniel P Morin3, Steven L Zweibel4, Alfred E Buxton5, Mark J Pletcher2, Eric Vittinghoff2, Jeffrey E Olgin6. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Medicine, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Ochsner Clinical School, University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 4. Department of Medicine, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. 5. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: jeffrey.olgin@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Persistent severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with increased mortality and is a class I indication for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. OBJECTIVES: This study developed models and assessed independent predictors of LV recovery to >35% and ≥50% after 90-day follow-up in patients presenting with acute MI and severe LV dysfunction. METHODS: Our multicenter prospective observational study enrolled participants with ejection fraction (EF) of ≤35% at the time of MI (n = 231). Predictors for EF recovery to >35% and ≥50% were identified after multivariate modeling and validated in a separate cohort (n = 236). RESULTS: In the PREDICTS (PREDiction of ICd Treatment Study) study, 43% of patients had persistent EF ≤35%, 31% had an EF of 36% to 49%, and 26% had an EF ≥50%. The model that best predicted recovery of EF to >35% included EF at presentation, length of stay, prior MI, lateral wall motion abnormality at presentation, and peak troponin. The model that best predicted recovery of EF to ≥50% included EF at presentation, peak troponin, prior MI, and presentation with ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest. After predictors were transformed into point scores, the lowest point scores predicted a 9% and 4% probability of EF recovery to >35% and ≥50%, respectively, whereas profiles with the highest point scores predicted an 87% and 49% probability of EF recovery to >35% and ≥50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe systolic dysfunction following acute MI with an EF ≤35%, 57% had EF recovery to >35%. A model using clinical variables present at the time of MI can help predict EF recovery.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Persistent severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with increased mortality and is a class I indication for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. OBJECTIVES: This study developed models and assessed independent predictors of LV recovery to >35% and ≥50% after 90-day follow-up in patients presenting with acute MI and severe LV dysfunction. METHODS: Our multicenter prospective observational study enrolled participants with ejection fraction (EF) of ≤35% at the time of MI (n = 231). Predictors for EF recovery to >35% and ≥50% were identified after multivariate modeling and validated in a separate cohort (n = 236). RESULTS: In the PREDICTS (PREDiction of ICd Treatment Study) study, 43% of patients had persistent EF ≤35%, 31% had an EF of 36% to 49%, and 26% had an EF ≥50%. The model that best predicted recovery of EF to >35% included EF at presentation, length of stay, prior MI, lateral wall motion abnormality at presentation, and peak troponin. The model that best predicted recovery of EF to ≥50% included EF at presentation, peak troponin, prior MI, and presentation with ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest. After predictors were transformed into point scores, the lowest point scores predicted a 9% and 4% probability of EF recovery to >35% and ≥50%, respectively, whereas profiles with the highest point scores predicted an 87% and 49% probability of EF recovery to >35% and ≥50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe systolic dysfunction following acute MI with an EF ≤35%, 57% had EF recovery to >35%. A model using clinical variables present at the time of MI can help predict EF recovery.
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Darleen Lessard; Frederick A Spencer; Jerry H Gurwitz; Joel M Gore; Jorge Yarzebski; Robert J Goldberg Journal: Am J Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Sean D Pokorney; Amy L Miller; Anita Y Chen; Laine Thomas; Gregg C Fonarow; James A de Lemos; Sana M Al-Khatib; Eric D Peterson; Tracy Y Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2015 Jun 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S D Solomon; R J Glynn; S Greaves; U Ajani; J L Rouleau; F Menapace; J M Arnold; C Hennekens; M A Pfeffer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-03-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stanley Chia; Fred Senatore; O Christopher Raffel; Hang Lee; Frans J Th Wackers; Ik-Kyung Jang Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Irene Kirolos; David Jones; Kirstin Hesterberg; Charles Yarn; Rami N Khouzam; Yehoshua C Levine Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2019-08-08
Authors: Brendan P Purcell; Shayne C Barlow; Paige E Perreault; Lisa Freeburg; Heather Doviak; Julia Jacobs; Abigail Hoenes; Kia N Zellars; Aarif Y Khakoo; TaeWeon Lee; Jason A Burdick; Francis G Spinale Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: José C Nicolau; Remo H M Furtado; Suzana A Silva; Carlos E Rochitte; Anis Rassi; João B M C Moraes; Edgard Quintella; Costantino R Costantini; Adrian P M Korman; Marco A Mattos; Hélio J Castello; Adriano Caixeta; Hans F R Dohmann; Antonio C C de Carvalho Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Jeffrey E Olgin; Mark J Pletcher; Eric Vittinghoff; Jerzy Wranicz; Rajesh Malik; Daniel P Morin; Steven Zweibel; Alfred E Buxton; Claude S Elayi; Eugene H Chung; Eric Rashba; Martin Borggrefe; Trisha F Hue; Carol Maguire; Feng Lin; Joel A Simon; Stephen Hulley; Byron K Lee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dan Yang; Connor Galen O'Brien; Gentaro Ikeda; Jay H Traverse; Doris A Taylor; Timothy D Henry; Roberto Bolli; Phillip C Yang Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Tobias C Dreher; Ibrahim El-Battrawy; Susanne RÖger; Stephanie L Rosenkaimer; Stefan Gerhards; JÜrgen Kuschyk; Martin Borggrefe; Ibrahim Akin Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Cian P McCarthy; Omair Yousuf; Alvaro Alonso; Elizabeth Selvin; Hugh Calkins; John W McEvoy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 2.778