Daniel J Friedman1, Marat Fudim2, Robert Overton3, Linda K Shaw3, Divyang Patel4, Sean D Pokorney2, Eric J Velazquez5, Sana M Al-Khatib2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Department of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC. Electronic address: daniel.friedman@duke.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Department of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC. 5. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; Department of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC; Cardiac Diagnostic Unit, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is used to select patients for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The relationship between baseline and long-term follow-up LVEF and clinical outcomes among primary prevention ICD patients remains unclear. METHODS: We studied 195 patients with a baseline LVEF ≤35% ≤6 months prior to ICD implantation and follow-up LVEF 1-3 years after ICD implantation without intervening left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or transplant. The co-primary study endpoints were: (1) a composite of time to death, LVAD, or transplant and (2) appropriate ICD therapy. We examined multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a 3-year post-implant landmark view; the LVEF closest to the 3-year mark was considered the follow-up LVEF for analyses. Follow-up LVEF was examined using 2 definitions: (1) ≥10% improvement compared to baseline or (2) actual value of ≥40%. RESULTS: Fifty patients (26%) had a LVEF improvement of ≥10% and 44 (23%) had a follow-up LVEF ≥40%. Neither baseline nor follow-up LVEF was significantly associated with the composite endpoint. In contrast, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were associated with risk for long-term ICD therapies, whether follow-up LVEF was modeled as a ≥10% absolute improvement (baseline LVEF HR 0.87, CI 0.91-0.93, P < .001; follow-up LVEF HR 0.18, CI 0.06-0.53, P = .002) or a ≥40% follow-up value (baseline LVEF HR 0.89, CI 0.83-0.96, P = .001, follow-up LVEF HR 0.26, CI 0.08-0.87, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among primary prevention ICD recipients, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were independently associated with long-term risk for appropriate ICD therapy, but they were not associated with time to the composite of LVAD, transplant, or death.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is used to select patients for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The relationship between baseline and long-term follow-up LVEF and clinical outcomes among primary prevention ICD patients remains unclear. METHODS: We studied 195 patients with a baseline LVEF ≤35% ≤6 months prior to ICD implantation and follow-up LVEF 1-3 years after ICD implantation without intervening left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or transplant. The co-primary study endpoints were: (1) a composite of time to death, LVAD, or transplant and (2) appropriate ICD therapy. We examined multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a 3-year post-implant landmark view; the LVEF closest to the 3-year mark was considered the follow-up LVEF for analyses. Follow-up LVEF was examined using 2 definitions: (1) ≥10% improvement compared to baseline or (2) actual value of ≥40%. RESULTS: Fifty patients (26%) had a LVEF improvement of ≥10% and 44 (23%) had a follow-up LVEF ≥40%. Neither baseline nor follow-up LVEF was significantly associated with the composite endpoint. In contrast, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were associated with risk for long-term ICD therapies, whether follow-up LVEF was modeled as a ≥10% absolute improvement (baseline LVEF HR 0.87, CI 0.91-0.93, P < .001; follow-up LVEF HR 0.18, CI 0.06-0.53, P = .002) or a ≥40% follow-up value (baseline LVEF HR 0.89, CI 0.83-0.96, P = .001, follow-up LVEF HR 0.26, CI 0.08-0.87, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among primary prevention ICD recipients, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were independently associated with long-term risk for appropriate ICD therapy, but they were not associated with time to the composite of LVAD, transplant, or death.
Authors: Malini Madhavan; Jonathan W Waks; Paul A Friedman; Daniel B Kramer; Alfred E Buxton; Peter A Noseworthy; Ramila A Mehta; David O Hodge; Angela Y Higgins; Tracy L Webster; Chance M Witt; Yong-Mei Cha; Bernard J Gersh Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2016-03
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: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; Jennifer M Gierisch; Matthew J Crowley; Remy R Coeytaux; Evan R Myers; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Willy Weng; John Sapp; Steve Doucette; Ciorsti MacIntyre; Christopher Gray; Martin Gardner; Amir Abdelwahab; Ratika Parkash Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2017-05-31
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