Orison O Woolcott1, Kyndaron Reinier1, Audrey Uy-Evanado1, Gregory A Nichols2, Eric C Stecker3, Jonathan Jui4, Sumeet S Chugh5. 1. Center for Cardiac Arrest Prevention, Department of Cardiology, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California. 2. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon. 3. Division of Cardiology, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 5. Center for Cardiac Arrest Prevention, Department of Cardiology, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: Sumeet.Chugh@cshs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with shockable sudden cardiac arrest (SCA; ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia) have significantly better resuscitation outcomes than do those with nonshockable rhythm (pulseless electrical activity/asystole). Heart failure (HF) increases the risk of SCA, but presenting rhythms have not been previously evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that based on unique characteristics, HFpEF (HF with preserved ejection fraction; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥50%), bHFpEF (HF with borderline preserved ejection fraction; LVEF >40% and <50%), and HFrEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction; LVEF ≤40%) manifest differences in presenting rhythm during SCA. METHODS: Consecutive cases of SCA with HF (age ≥18 years) were ascertained in the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study (2002-2019). LVEF was obtained from echocardiograms performed before and unrelated to the SCA event. Presenting rhythms were identified from first responder reports. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of presenting rhythm with HF subtype. RESULTS: Of 648 subjects with HF and SCA (median age 72 years; interquartile range 62-81 years), 274 had HFrEF (23.4% female), 92 had bHFpEF (35.9% female), and 282 had HFpEF (42.5% female). The rates of shockable rhythms were 44.5% (n = 122), 48.9% (n = 45), and 27.0% (n = 76) for HFrEF, bHFpEF, and HFpEF, respectively (P < .001). Compared with HFpEF, the adjusted odds ratios for shockable rhythm were 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.27-2.74; P = .002) in HFrEF and 2.26 (95% CI 1.35-3.77; P = .002) in bHFpEF. The rates of survival to hospital discharge were 10.6% (n = 29) in HFrEF, 22.8% (n = 21) in bHFpEF, and 9.9% (n = 28) in HFpEF (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The rates of shockable rhythm during SCA depend on the HF clinical subtype. Patients with bHFpEF had the highest likelihood of shockable rhythm, correlating with the highest rates of survival.
BACKGROUND:Patients with shockable sudden cardiac arrest (SCA; ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia) have significantly better resuscitation outcomes than do those with nonshockable rhythm (pulseless electrical activity/asystole). Heart failure (HF) increases the risk of SCA, but presenting rhythms have not been previously evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that based on unique characteristics, HFpEF (HF with preserved ejection fraction; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥50%), bHFpEF (HF with borderline preserved ejection fraction; LVEF >40% and <50%), and HFrEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction; LVEF ≤40%) manifest differences in presenting rhythm during SCA. METHODS: Consecutive cases of SCA with HF (age ≥18 years) were ascertained in the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study (2002-2019). LVEF was obtained from echocardiograms performed before and unrelated to the SCA event. Presenting rhythms were identified from first responder reports. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association of presenting rhythm with HF subtype. RESULTS: Of 648 subjects with HF and SCA (median age 72 years; interquartile range 62-81 years), 274 had HFrEF (23.4% female), 92 had bHFpEF (35.9% female), and 282 had HFpEF (42.5% female). The rates of shockable rhythms were 44.5% (n = 122), 48.9% (n = 45), and 27.0% (n = 76) for HFrEF, bHFpEF, and HFpEF, respectively (P < .001). Compared with HFpEF, the adjusted odds ratios for shockable rhythm were 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.27-2.74; P = .002) in HFrEF and 2.26 (95% CI 1.35-3.77; P = .002) in bHFpEF. The rates of survival to hospital discharge were 10.6% (n = 29) in HFrEF, 22.8% (n = 21) in bHFpEF, and 9.9% (n = 28) in HFpEF (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The rates of shockable rhythm during SCA depend on the HF clinical subtype. Patients with bHFpEF had the highest likelihood of shockable rhythm, correlating with the highest rates of survival.
Authors: J Herlitz; E Andersson; A Bång; J Engdahl; M Holmberg; J lindqvist; B W Karlson; L Waagstein Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Sumeet S Chugh; Jonathan Jui; Karen Gunson; Eric C Stecker; Benjamin T John; Barbara Thompson; Nasreen Ilias; Catherine Vickers; Vivek Dogra; Mohamud Daya; Jack Kron; Zhi-Jie Zheng; George Mensah; John McAnulty Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Li Shen; Pardeep S Jhund; Inder S Anand; Peter E Carson; Akshay S Desai; Christopher B Granger; Lars Køber; Michel Komajda; Robert S McKelvie; Marc A Pfeffer; Scott D Solomon; Karl Swedberg; Michael R Zile; John J V McMurray Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 5.460