CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

The contribution of tissue-grouped BMI-associated gene sets to cardiometabolic-disease risk: a Mendelian randomization study Long-Term All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in Asymptomatic Patients With CAC ≥1,000: Results From the CAC Consortium 1-Year Outcomes of Delayed Versus Immediate Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complex PCI procedures: challenges for the interventional cardiologist Myocardial bridging of the left anterior descending coronary artery is associated with reduced myocardial perfusion reserve: a 13N-ammonia PET study Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study Nonculprit Lesion Plaque Morphology in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results From the COMPLETE Trial Optical Coherence Tomography Substudys Differential prognostic effect of intravascular ultrasound use according to implanted stent length Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Differential Impact of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction on Men and Women

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.