Cargando…
Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35%
BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines support the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with either non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, evidence from trials for effi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37625819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2023-002289 |
_version_ | 1785098150417006592 |
---|---|
author | Wasfy, Jason H Achanta, Aditya Hidrue, Michael K Urbut, Sarah Axtell, Andrea L Berman, Adam N Zhao, Yunong Chen, Julian Gustus, Sarah Picard, Michael H |
author_facet | Wasfy, Jason H Achanta, Aditya Hidrue, Michael K Urbut, Sarah Axtell, Andrea L Berman, Adam N Zhao, Yunong Chen, Julian Gustus, Sarah Picard, Michael H |
author_sort | Wasfy, Jason H |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines support the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with either non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, evidence from trials for efficacy specifically for patients with LVEF near 35% is weak. Past trials are underpowered for this population and future trials are unlikely to be performed. METHODS: Patients with lowest LVEF between 30% and 35% without an ICD prior to the lowest-LVEF echo (defined as ‘time zero’) were identified by querying echocardiography data from 28 November 2001 to 9 July 2020 at the Massachusetts General Hospital linked to ICD treatment status. To assess the association between ICD and mortality, propensity score matching followed by Cox proportional hazards models considering treatment status as a time-dependent covariate was used. A secondary analysis was performed for LVEF 36%–40%. RESULTS: Initially, 526 440 echocardiograms representing 266 601 unique patients were identified. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 6109 patients remained for the analytical cohort. In bivariate unadjusted comparisons, patients who received ICDs were substantially more often male (79.8% vs 65.4%, p<0.0001), more often white (87.5% vs 83.7%, p<0.046) and more often had a history of ventricular tachycardia (74.5% vs 19.1%, p<0.0001) and myocardial infarction (56.1% vs 38.2%, p<0.0001). In the propensity matched sample, after accounting for time-dependence, there was no association between ICD and mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, p=0.482). CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy was not associated with reduced mortality near the conventional LVEF threshold of 35%. Although this treatment design cannot definitively demonstrate lack of efficacy, our results are concordant with available prior trial data. A definitive, well-powered trial is needed to answer the important clinical question of primary prevention ICD efficacy between LVEF 30% and 35%. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10462974 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104629742023-08-30 Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% Wasfy, Jason H Achanta, Aditya Hidrue, Michael K Urbut, Sarah Axtell, Andrea L Berman, Adam N Zhao, Yunong Chen, Julian Gustus, Sarah Picard, Michael H Open Heart Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines support the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with either non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, evidence from trials for efficacy specifically for patients with LVEF near 35% is weak. Past trials are underpowered for this population and future trials are unlikely to be performed. METHODS: Patients with lowest LVEF between 30% and 35% without an ICD prior to the lowest-LVEF echo (defined as ‘time zero’) were identified by querying echocardiography data from 28 November 2001 to 9 July 2020 at the Massachusetts General Hospital linked to ICD treatment status. To assess the association between ICD and mortality, propensity score matching followed by Cox proportional hazards models considering treatment status as a time-dependent covariate was used. A secondary analysis was performed for LVEF 36%–40%. RESULTS: Initially, 526 440 echocardiograms representing 266 601 unique patients were identified. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 6109 patients remained for the analytical cohort. In bivariate unadjusted comparisons, patients who received ICDs were substantially more often male (79.8% vs 65.4%, p<0.0001), more often white (87.5% vs 83.7%, p<0.046) and more often had a history of ventricular tachycardia (74.5% vs 19.1%, p<0.0001) and myocardial infarction (56.1% vs 38.2%, p<0.0001). In the propensity matched sample, after accounting for time-dependence, there was no association between ICD and mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, p=0.482). CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy was not associated with reduced mortality near the conventional LVEF threshold of 35%. Although this treatment design cannot definitively demonstrate lack of efficacy, our results are concordant with available prior trial data. A definitive, well-powered trial is needed to answer the important clinical question of primary prevention ICD efficacy between LVEF 30% and 35%. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10462974/ /pubmed/37625819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2023-002289 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies Wasfy, Jason H Achanta, Aditya Hidrue, Michael K Urbut, Sarah Axtell, Andrea L Berman, Adam N Zhao, Yunong Chen, Julian Gustus, Sarah Picard, Michael H Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title | Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title_full | Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title_fullStr | Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title_full_unstemmed | Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title_short | Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
title_sort | association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35% |
topic | Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37625819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2023-002289 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wasfyjasonh associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT achantaaditya associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT hidruemichaelk associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT urbutsarah associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT axtellandreal associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT bermanadamn associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT zhaoyunong associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT chenjulian associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT gustussarah associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 AT picardmichaelh associationbetweenimplantedcardioverterdefibrillatorsandmortalityforpatientswithleftventricularejectionfractionbetween30and35 |