CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018 Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathogenesis to the Fine Line Between Bleeding and Ischemic Risk Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Management of Myocardial Revascularization Failure: An Expert Consensus Document of the EAPCI

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.