Clinical InvestigationThe relationship between baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction with adverse events among primary prevention ICD patients
Section snippets
Patient population
We performed a retrospective landmark analysis of HF patients in the Duke Echocardiography Laboratory Database (DELD) who underwent primary prevention ICD implantation (EF ≤35%) without cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) at Duke University from 2006–2013 and had a baseline LVEF within ≤6 months of the ICD procedure and a follow-up LVEF 1–3 years after ICD implantation. The DELD is a comprehensive prospectively recorded echocardiography database that includes all clinical echocardiograms
Cohort derivation
A total of 1745 dual or single chamber primary prevention ICD procedures were performed between 2006 and 2015 at Duke University Hospital. After excluding patients with: prior ICD procedures (n = 343); no baseline LVEF assessment at Duke within 6 months of index procedure (n = 243); a pre-implantation LVEF >35% (n = 192); death or loss to follow-up within 3 years of ICD implantation (n = 454); and LVAD or cardiac transplant within 3 years of ICD implantation (n = 32), a total of 481 patients
Discussion
Our study sought to define the comparative prognostic utility of baseline versus long-term follow-up LVEF among primary prevention ICD patients. It provides several clinically relevant findings. First, neither baseline nor follow-up LVEF were found to have significant relationships with risk of LVAD, transplant or death. Second, baseline and follow-up LVEF were associated with appropriate ICD therapies. Third, although LVEF improvement is associated with a significantly lower probability of
Conclusions
Among primary prevention ICD recipients, both baseline and follow-up LVEF were independently associated with long-term risk for appropriate ICD therapy, but they were not associated with increased risk of LVAD, transplant, or death. Although follow-up LVEF assessment can be an important tool for risk stratification of ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients, it should be used in conjunction with the pre-implantation LVEF, as both measures have independent predictive value.
The following are the
References (19)
- et al.
The National ICD Registry Report: version 2.1 including leads and pediatrics for years 2010 and 2011
Heart Rhythm
(2013) - et al.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at end of battery life: Opportunities for risk (re)-stratification in ICD recipients
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2016) - et al.
The MitraClip and survival in patients with mitral regurgitation at high risk for surgery: A propensity-matched comparison
Am Heart J
(2015) - et al.
The DEDUCE Guided Query tool: providing simplified access to clinical data for research and quality improvement
J Biomed Inform
(2011) - et al.
Significance of follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction measurements in the Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation trial (DEFINITE)
Heart Rhythm
(2013) - et al.
Benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacement in a primary prevention population-based cohort
J Am Coll Cardiol EP
(2017) - et al.
Changes in follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction associated with outcomes in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device recipients
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2015) - et al.
Meta-analysis of risk of ventricular arrhythmias after improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up in patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators
Am J Cardiol
(2017) - et al.
Appropriateness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators at the time of generator replacement: are indications still met?
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2014)
Cited by (5)
Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Poor Myocardial Viability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Last Decade
2022, Heart Lung and CirculationCitation Excerpt :Methods for detecting viability are rapidly evolving and are beginning to identify patients who stand to benefit from revascularisation [2]. The emerging consensus from these viability assessment techniques is that intervention may not confer survival benefit [3–19]. This is reflected in global guidelines [20,21], which recommend careful consideration through multidisciplinary discussion and case-based evaluation of percutaneous and surgical treatment strategies for patients with non-viable myocardium.
Ongoing Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias and All-Cause Mortality at Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Generator Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2021, Circulation: Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySinergy between drugs and devices in the fight against sudden cardiac death and heart failure
2021, European Journal of Preventive CardiologyPrimary Prevention Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: A Townsville District Perspective
2020, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Funding: Dr. Friedman received salary support through the NIH T32 training grant HL069749.
Conflicts of Interest: DJ Friedman reports educational grants from Boston Scientific and St Jude Medical, research grants from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, and salary support through NIH T32 training grant HL069749–13. M Fudim reports research funding from AHA; and consulting services for Coridea and Cibiem. SD Pokorney reports research grants from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and the Food and Drug Administration; consulting support from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers-Squibb. EJ Velazquez reports research grants from NHLBI, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., Pfizer; consulting services for Amgen, Merck & Co., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.; and speakers bureau honoraria from Expert Exchange. The rest of the authors have nothing to disclose.