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.
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.
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
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
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: 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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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