CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Noninvasive Imaging for the Evaluation of Diastolic Function: Promises Fulfilled Defining a new standard for IVUS optimized drug eluting stent implantation: the PRAVIO study Management of left main disease: an update Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy with Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week Role of intravascular ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Clinical TrialJune 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Article Link

Improving the Use of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Therapy With Validated Patient-Centric Risk Estimates

WC Levy, AS Hellkamp, DB Mark et al. Keywords: heart failure; ICD; non-sudden death; prognosis; proportional risk; regression analysis; risk prediction model; sudden death

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The authors previously developed the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) in systolic heart failure patients without implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)to predict the proportion of deaths that were sudden. They subsequently validated the SPRM in 2 observational ICD data sets. The objectives in the present study were to determine whether this validated model could improve identification of clinically important variations in the expected magnitude of ICD survival benefit by using a pivotal randomized trial of primary prevention ICD therapy.


BACKGROUND - Recent data show that <50% of nominally eligible subjects receive guideline- recommended primary prevention ICDs.

METHODS - In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), a placebo-controlled ICD trial in 2,521 patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% and symptomatic heart failure, we tested the use of patient-level SPRM-predicted probability of sudden death (relative to that of non-sudden death) as a summary measurement of the potential for ICD benefit. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate variations in the relationship between patient-level SPRM predictions and ICD benefit.

RESULTS - Relative to use of mortality predictions with the Seattle Heart Failure Model, the SPRM was much better at partitioning treatment benefit from ICD therapy (effect size was 2- to 3.6-fold larger for the ICD×SPRM interaction). ICD benefit varied significantly across SPRM-predicted risk quartiles: for all-cause mortality, a +10% increase with ICD therapy in the first quartile (highest risk of death, lowest proportion of sudden death) to a decrease of 66% in the fourth quartile (lowest risk of death, highest proportion of sudden death; p = 0.0013); for sudden death mortality, a 19% reduction in SPRM quartile 1 to 95% reduction in SPRM quartile 4 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS - In symptomatic systolic heart failure patients with a Class I recommendation for primary prevention ICD therapy, the SPRM offers a useful patient-centric tool for guiding shared decision making.