Literature DB >> 28130376

Application and comparison of the FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D risk models for risk stratification of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment.

Aafke C van der Heijden1, Johannes B van Rees1, Wayne C Levy2, Johanna G van der Bom3, Suzanne C Cannegieter3, Mihàly K de Bie1, Lieselot van Erven1, Martin J Schalij4, C Jan Willem Borleffs1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment is beneficial in selected patients. However, it remains difficult to accurately predict which patients benefit most from ICD implantation. For this purpose, different risk models have been developed. The aim was to validate and compare the FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D models. METHODS AND
RESULTS: All patients receiving a prophylactic ICD at the Leiden University Medical Center were evaluated. Individual model performance was evaluated by C-statistics. Model performances were compared using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated differentiation improvement (IDI). The primary endpoint was non-benefit of ICD treatment, defined as mortality without prior ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD intervention. A total of 1969 patients were included (age 63 ± 11 years; 79% male). During a median follow-up of 4.5 ± 3.9 years, 318 (16%) patients died without prior ICD intervention. All three risk models were predictive for event-free mortality (all: P < 0.001). The C-statistics were 0.66, 0.69, and 0.75, respectively, for FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D (all: P < 0.001). Application of the SHFM-D resulted in an improved IDI of 4% and NRI of 26% compared with MADIT; IDI improved 11% with the use of SHFM-D instead of FADES (all: P < 0.001), but NRI remained unchanged (P = 0.71). Patients in the highest-risk category of the MADIT and SHFM-D models had 1.7 times higher risk to experience ICD non-benefit than receive appropriate ICD interventions [MADIT: mean difference (MD) 20% (95% CI: 7-33%), P = 0.001; SHFM-D: MD 16% (95% CI: 5-27%), P = 0.005]. Patients in the highest-risk category of FADES were as likely to experience ICD intervention as ICD non-benefit [MD 3% (95% CI: -8 to 14%), P = 0.60].
CONCLUSION: The predictive and discriminatory value of SHFM-D to predict non-benefit of ICD treatment is superior to FADES and MADIT in patients receiving prophylactic ICD treatment. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2017. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Primary prevention; Risk stratification

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28130376      PMCID: PMC5841558          DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  22 in total

1.  Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality.

Authors:  Johannes B van Rees; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Mihály K de Bie; Theo Stijnen; Lieselot van Erven; Jeroen J Bax; Martin J Schalij
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Risk stratification for primary implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.

Authors:  Ilan Goldenberg; Anant K Vyas; W Jackson Hall; Arthur J Moss; Hongyue Wang; Hua He; Wojciech Zareba; Scott McNitt; Mark L Andrews
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

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

4.  Long-term follow-up of primary and secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients.

Authors:  Guido H van Welsenes; Johannes B van Rees; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Suzanne C Cannegieter; Jeroen J Bax; Lieselot van Erven; Martin J Schalij
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.214

5.  Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.

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

6.  The ICD for primary prevention in patients with inherited cardiac diseases: indications, use, and outcome: a comparison with secondary prevention.

Authors:  Louise R A Olde Nordkamp; Arthur A M Wilde; Jan G P Tijssen; Reinoud E Knops; Pascal F H M van Dessel; Joris R de Groot
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-12-29

7.  Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term (8-year) benefit of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Authors:  Alon Barsheshet; Arthur J Moss; David T Huang; Scott McNitt; Wojciech Zareba; Ilan Goldenberg
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Jeanne E Poole; George W Johnson; Anne S Hellkamp; Jill Anderson; David J Callans; Merritt H Raitt; Ramakota K Reddy; Francis E Marchlinski; Raymond Yee; Thomas Guarnieri; Mario Talajic; David J Wilber; Daniel P Fishbein; Douglas L Packer; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Gust H Bardy
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-04       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Effect of cardiac and noncardiac conditions on survival after defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Douglas S Lee; Jack V Tu; Peter C Austin; Paul Dorian; Raymond Yee; Alice Chong; David A Alter; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  4 in total

1.  Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in repaired tetralogy of fallot patients: Prevalence and electrophysiological mechanisms.

Authors:  Isaac L Goldenthal; Marlon S Rosenbaum; Matthew Lewis; Robert R Sciacca; Hasan Garan; Angelo B Biviano
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2020-05-26

2.  Usefulness of the MAGGIC Score in Predicting the Competing Risk of Non-Sudden Death in Heart Failure Patients Receiving an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Sub-Analysis of the OBSERVO-ICD Registry.

Authors:  Marco Canepa; Pietro Palmisano; Gabriele Dell'Era; Matteo Ziacchi; Ernesto Ammendola; Michele Accogli; Eraldo Occhetta; Mauro Biffi; Gerardo Nigro; Pietro Ameri; Giulia Stronati; Italo Porto; Antonio Dello Russo; Federico Guerra
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 3.  Time to Shock the System: Moving Beyond the Current Paradigm for Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Use.

Authors:  Faisal M Merchant; Wayne C Levy; Daniel B Kramer
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 5.501

4.  Baseline and Dynamic Risk Predictors of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.

Authors:  Katherine C Wu; Shannon Wongvibulsin; Susumu Tao; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Michael Stillabower; Timm M Dickfeld; Joseph E Marine; Robert G Weiss; Gordon F Tomaselli; Scott L Zeger
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 5.501

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.