Kenneth C Bilchick1, Daniel A Auger2, Mohammad Abdishektaei2, Roshin Mathew3, Min-Woong Sohn4, Xiaoying Cai2, Changyu Sun2, Aditya Narayan2, Rohit Malhotra3, Andrew Darby3, J Michael Mangrum3, Nishaki Mehta3, John Ferguson3, Sula Mazimba3, Pamela K Mason3, Christopher M Kramer5, Wayne C Levy6, Frederick H Epstein7. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: bilchick@virginia.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if combining the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM-D) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) provides complementary prognostic data for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators. BACKGROUND: The SHFM-D is among the most widely used risk stratification models for overall survival in patients with heart failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and CMR provides highly detailed information regarding cardiac structure and function. METHODS: CMR Displacement Encoding with Stimulated Echoes (DENSE) strain imaging was used to generate the circumferential uniformity ratio estimate with singular value decomposition (CURE-SVD) circumferential strain dyssynchrony parameter, and the SHFM-D was determined from clinical parameters. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios and time-dependent areas under the curve for the primary endpoint of death, heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device, or appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 100 patients (65.5 [interquartile range 57.7 to 72.7] years; 29% female), of whom 47% had the primary clinical endpoint and 18% had appropriate ICD therapies during a median follow-up of 5.3 years. CURE-SVD and the SHFM-D were independently associated with the primary endpoint (SHFM-D: hazard ratio: 1.47/SD; 95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 2.03; p = 0.02) (CURE-SVD: hazard ratio: 1.54/SD; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 2.11; p = 0.009). Furthermore, a favorable prognostic group (Group A, with CURE-SVD <0.60 and SHFM-D <0.70) comprising approximately one-third of the patients had a very low rate of appropriate ICD therapies (1.5% per year) and a greater (90%) 4-year survival compared with Group B (CURE-SVD ≥0.60 or SHFM-D ≥0.70) patients (p = 0.02). CURE-SVD with DENSE had a stronger correlation with CRT response (r = -0.57; p < 0.0001) than CURE-SVD with feature tracking (r = -0.28; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach to risk stratification using CMR DENSE strain imaging and a widely used clinical risk model, the SHFM-D, proved to be effective in this cohort of patients referred for CRT defibrillators. The combined use of CMR and clinical risk models represents a promising and novel paradigm to inform prognosis and device selection in the future.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if combining the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM-D) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) provides complementary prognostic data for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators. BACKGROUND: The SHFM-D is among the most widely used risk stratification models for overall survival in patients with heart failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and CMR provides highly detailed information regarding cardiac structure and function. METHODS: CMR Displacement Encoding with Stimulated Echoes (DENSE) strain imaging was used to generate the circumferential uniformity ratio estimate with singular value decomposition (CURE-SVD) circumferential strain dyssynchrony parameter, and the SHFM-D was determined from clinical parameters. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios and time-dependent areas under the curve for the primary endpoint of death, heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device, or appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 100 patients (65.5 [interquartile range 57.7 to 72.7] years; 29% female), of whom 47% had the primary clinical endpoint and 18% had appropriate ICD therapies during a median follow-up of 5.3 years. CURE-SVD and the SHFM-D were independently associated with the primary endpoint (SHFM-D: hazard ratio: 1.47/SD; 95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 2.03; p = 0.02) (CURE-SVD: hazard ratio: 1.54/SD; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 2.11; p = 0.009). Furthermore, a favorable prognostic group (Group A, with CURE-SVD <0.60 and SHFM-D <0.70) comprising approximately one-third of the patients had a very low rate of appropriate ICD therapies (1.5% per year) and a greater (90%) 4-year survival compared with Group B (CURE-SVD ≥0.60 or SHFM-D ≥0.70) patients (p = 0.02). CURE-SVD with DENSE had a stronger correlation with CRT response (r = -0.57; p < 0.0001) than CURE-SVD with feature tracking (r = -0.28; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach to risk stratification using CMR DENSE strain imaging and a widely used clinical risk model, the SHFM-D, proved to be effective in this cohort of patients referred for CRT defibrillators. The combined use of CMR and clinical risk models represents a promising and novel paradigm to inform prognosis and device selection in the future.
Authors: Xu Gao; Mohamad Abdi; Daniel A Auger; Changyu Sun; Christopher A Hanson; Austin A Robinson; Christopher Schumann; Pim J Oomen; Sarah Ratcliffe; Rohit Malhotra; Andrew Darby; Oliver J Monfredi; J Michael Mangrum; Pamela Mason; Sula Mazimba; Jeffrey W Holmes; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; Michael Salerno; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-08-18
Authors: George Bazoukis; Jeremy Man Ho Hui; Yan Hiu Athena Lee; Oscar Hou In Chou; Dimitrios Sfairopoulos; Konstantinos Vlachos; Athanasios Saplaouras; Konstantinos P Letsas; Michael Efremidis; Gary Tse; Vassilios S Vassiliou; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Mohamad Abdi; Xue Feng; Changyu Sun; Kenneth C Bilchick; Craig H Meyer; Frederick H Epstein Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Daniel A Auger; Sona Ghadimi; Xiaoying Cai; Claire E Reagan; Changyu Sun; Mohamad Abdi; Jie Jane Cao; Joshua Y Cheng; Nora Ngai; Andrew D Scott; Pedro F Ferreira; John N Oshinski; Nick Emamifar; Daniel B Ennis; Michael Loecher; Zhan-Qiu Liu; Pierre Croisille; Magalie Viallon; Kenneth C Bilchick; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Derek J Bivona; Srikar Tallavajhala; Mohamad Abdi; Pim J A Oomen; Xu Gao; Rohit Malhotra; Andrew Darby; Oliver J Monfredi; J Michael Mangrum; Pamela Mason; Sula Mazimba; Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; Jeffrey W Holmes; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: Sona Ghadimi; Daniel A Auger; Xue Feng; Changyu Sun; Craig H Meyer; Kenneth C Bilchick; Jie Jane Cao; Andrew D Scott; John N Oshinski; Daniel B Ennis; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 5.364