Zian H Tseng1, James W Salazar2, Jeffrey E Olgin1, Philip C Ursell3, Anthony S Kim4, Annie Bedigian1, Joanne Probert1, Amy P Hart5, Ellen Moffatt5, Eric Vittinghoff6. 1. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine (Z.H.T., J.E.O., A.B., J.P.), University of California. 2. Department of Medicine (J.W.S.), University of California. 3. Department of Pathology (P.C.U.), University of California. 4. Department of Neurology (A.S.K.), University of California. 5. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, City and County of San Francisco, CA (A.P.H., E.M.). 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (E.V.), University of California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional definitions of sudden cardiac death (SCD) presume cardiac cause. We studied the World Health Organization-defined SCDs autopsied in the POST SCD study (Postmortem Systematic Investigation of SCD) to determine whether premortem characteristics could identify autopsy-defined sudden arrhythmic death (SAD) among presumed SCDs. METHODS: Between January 2, 2011, and January 4, 2016, we prospectively identified all 615 World Health Organization-defined SCDs (144 witnessed) 18 to 90 years in San Francisco County for medical record review and autopsy via medical examiner surveillance. Autopsy-defined SADs had no extracardiac or acute heart failure cause of death. We used 2 nested sets of premortem predictors-an emergency medical system set and a comprehensive set adding medical record data-to develop Least Absolute Selection and Shrinkage Operator models of SAD among witnessed and unwitnessed cohorts. RESULTS: Of 615 presumed SCDs, 348 (57%) were autopsy-defined SAD. For witnessed cases, the emergency medical system model (area under the receiver operator curve 0.75 [0.67-0.82]) included presenting rhythm of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity, while the comprehensive (area under the receiver operator curve 0.78 [0.70-0.84]) added depression. If only ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation witnessed cases (n=48) were classified as SAD, sensitivity was 0.46 (0.36-0.57), and specificity was 0.90 (0.79-0.97). For unwitnessed cases, the emergency medical system model (area under the receiver operator curve 0.68 [0.64-0.73]) included black race, male sex, age, and time since last seen normal, while the comprehensive (area under the receiver operator curve 0.75 [0.71-0.79]) added use of β-blockers, antidepressants, QT-prolonging drugs, opiates, illicit drugs, and dyslipidemia. If only unwitnessed cases <1 hour (n=59) were classified as SAD, sensitivity was 0.18 (0.13-0.22) and specificity was 0.95 (0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Our models identify premortem characteristics that can better specify autopsy-defined SAD among presumed SCDs and suggest the World Health Organization definition can be improved by restricting witnessed SCDs to ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or nonpulseless electrical activity rhythms and unwitnessed cases to <1 hour since last normal, at the cost of sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: Conventional definitions of sudden cardiac death (SCD) presume cardiac cause. We studied the World Health Organization-defined SCDs autopsied in the POST SCD study (Postmortem Systematic Investigation of SCD) to determine whether premortem characteristics could identify autopsy-defined sudden arrhythmic death (SAD) among presumed SCDs. METHODS: Between January 2, 2011, and January 4, 2016, we prospectively identified all 615 World Health Organization-defined SCDs (144 witnessed) 18 to 90 years in San Francisco County for medical record review and autopsy via medical examiner surveillance. Autopsy-defined SADs had no extracardiac or acute heart failure cause of death. We used 2 nested sets of premortem predictors-an emergency medical system set and a comprehensive set adding medical record data-to develop Least Absolute Selection and Shrinkage Operator models of SAD among witnessed and unwitnessed cohorts. RESULTS: Of 615 presumed SCDs, 348 (57%) were autopsy-defined SAD. For witnessed cases, the emergency medical system model (area under the receiver operator curve 0.75 [0.67-0.82]) included presenting rhythm of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity, while the comprehensive (area under the receiver operator curve 0.78 [0.70-0.84]) added depression. If only ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation witnessed cases (n=48) were classified as SAD, sensitivity was 0.46 (0.36-0.57), and specificity was 0.90 (0.79-0.97). For unwitnessed cases, the emergency medical system model (area under the receiver operator curve 0.68 [0.64-0.73]) included black race, male sex, age, and time since last seen normal, while the comprehensive (area under the receiver operator curve 0.75 [0.71-0.79]) added use of β-blockers, antidepressants, QT-prolonging drugs, opiates, illicit drugs, and dyslipidemia. If only unwitnessed cases <1 hour (n=59) were classified as SAD, sensitivity was 0.18 (0.13-0.22) and specificity was 0.95 (0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Our models identify premortem characteristics that can better specify autopsy-defined SAD among presumed SCDs and suggest the World Health Organization definition can be improved by restricting witnessed SCDs to ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or nonpulseless electrical activity rhythms and unwitnessed cases to <1 hour since last normal, at the cost of sensitivity.
Authors: Thea Bjune; Bjarke Risgaard; Line Kruckow; Charlotte Glinge; Ole Ingemann-Hansen; Peter Mygind Leth; Kristian Linnet; Jytte Banner; Bo Gregers Winkel; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen Journal: Europace Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Jaeger P Ackerman; Daniel C Bartos; Jamie D Kapplinger; David J Tester; Brian P Delisle; Michael J Ackerman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Zian H Tseng; Jeffrey E Olgin; Eric Vittinghoff; Philip C Ursell; Anthony S Kim; Karl Sporer; Clement Yeh; Benjamin Colburn; Nina M Clark; Rana Khan; Amy P Hart; Ellen Moffatt Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Rajat Deo; Faye L Norby; Ronit Katz; Nona Sotoodehnia; Selcuk Adabag; Christopher R DeFilippi; Bryan Kestenbaum; Lin Y Chen; Susan R Heckbert; Aaron R Folsom; Richard A Kronmal; Suma Konety; Kristen K Patton; David Siscovick; Michael G Shlipak; Alvaro Alonso Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Foram N Ashar; Rebecca N Mitchell; Christine M Albert; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Jennifer A Brody; Martina Müller-Nurasyid; Anna Moes; Thomas Meitinger; Angel Mak; Heikki Huikuri; M Juhani Junttila; Philippe Goyette; Sara L Pulit; Raha Pazoki; Michael W Tanck; Marieke T Blom; XiaoQing Zhao; Aki S Havulinna; Reza Jabbari; Charlotte Glinge; Vinicius Tragante; Stefan A Escher; Aravinda Chakravarti; Georg Ehret; Josef Coresh; Man Li; Ronald J Prineas; Oscar H Franco; Pui-Yan Kwok; Thomas Lumley; Florence Dumas; Barbara McKnight; Jerome I Rotter; Rozenn N Lemaitre; Susan R Heckbert; Christopher J O'Donnell; Shih-Jen Hwang; Jean-Claude Tardif; Martin VanDenburgh; André G Uitterlinden; Albert Hofman; Bruno H C Stricker; Paul I W de Bakker; Paul W Franks; Jan-Hakan Jansson; Folkert W Asselbergs; Marc K Halushka; Joseph J Maleszewski; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Engstrøm; Veikko Salomaa; Renu Virmani; Frank Kolodgie; Arthur A M Wilde; Hanno L Tan; Connie R Bezzina; Mark Eijgelsheim; John D Rioux; Xavier Jouven; Stefan Kääb; Bruce M Psaty; David S Siscovick; Dan E Arking; Nona Sotoodehnia Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 35.855