Cargando…

Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a suboptimal indicator of risk stratification for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Studies have shown that left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was associated with all-cause mortality and ventricular ar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Sijing, Deng, Yu, Huang, Hao, Liu, Xi, Yu, Yu, Chen, Xuhua, Gu, Min, Niu, Hongxia, Hua, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36547418
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9120421
_version_ 1784857445816860672
author Cheng, Sijing
Deng, Yu
Huang, Hao
Liu, Xi
Yu, Yu
Chen, Xuhua
Gu, Min
Niu, Hongxia
Hua, Wei
author_facet Cheng, Sijing
Deng, Yu
Huang, Hao
Liu, Xi
Yu, Yu
Chen, Xuhua
Gu, Min
Niu, Hongxia
Hua, Wei
author_sort Cheng, Sijing
collection PubMed
description Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a suboptimal indicator of risk stratification for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Studies have shown that left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was associated with all-cause mortality and ventricular arrhythmias. We examined the quantified prognostic value of LVEF and LVEDD for clinical outcomes, respectively. Method: This study retrospectively enrolled patients with ICD implantation in a single center. The associations between LVEF or LVEDD and all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks were analyzed using Cox regression and Fine-gray competing risk regression, respectively. Result: During a median follow up of 59.6 months, 168/630 (26.7%) patients died. LVEF and LVEDD were strongly associated with all-cause mortality (LVEF per 10%: HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.64–0.93, p = 0.006; LVEDD per 10 mm: HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.27–1.85, p < 0.001). After a median interrogation time of 37.1 months, 156 (24.8%) patients received at least one shock. LVEF was not associated with appropriate shock, whereas larger LVEDD (per 10 mm) was significantly associated with a higher risk of shock (HR: 1.27, 95%CI 1.06–1.52, p = 0.008). The addition of LVEF or LVEDD to clinical factors provided incremental prognostic value and discrimination improvement for all-cause mortality, while only the addition of LVEDD to clinical factors improved prognostic value for shock intervention. Conclusions: Baseline LVEF and LVEDD show a linear relationship with all-cause mortality in patients with ICD. However, whereas LVEF is not associated with shock, a linear relationship exists between LVEDD and appropriate shock. LVEDD adds more predictive value in relation to all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks than LVEF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9782887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97828872022-12-24 Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD Cheng, Sijing Deng, Yu Huang, Hao Liu, Xi Yu, Yu Chen, Xuhua Gu, Min Niu, Hongxia Hua, Wei J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Article Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a suboptimal indicator of risk stratification for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Studies have shown that left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was associated with all-cause mortality and ventricular arrhythmias. We examined the quantified prognostic value of LVEF and LVEDD for clinical outcomes, respectively. Method: This study retrospectively enrolled patients with ICD implantation in a single center. The associations between LVEF or LVEDD and all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks were analyzed using Cox regression and Fine-gray competing risk regression, respectively. Result: During a median follow up of 59.6 months, 168/630 (26.7%) patients died. LVEF and LVEDD were strongly associated with all-cause mortality (LVEF per 10%: HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.64–0.93, p = 0.006; LVEDD per 10 mm: HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.27–1.85, p < 0.001). After a median interrogation time of 37.1 months, 156 (24.8%) patients received at least one shock. LVEF was not associated with appropriate shock, whereas larger LVEDD (per 10 mm) was significantly associated with a higher risk of shock (HR: 1.27, 95%CI 1.06–1.52, p = 0.008). The addition of LVEF or LVEDD to clinical factors provided incremental prognostic value and discrimination improvement for all-cause mortality, while only the addition of LVEDD to clinical factors improved prognostic value for shock intervention. Conclusions: Baseline LVEF and LVEDD show a linear relationship with all-cause mortality in patients with ICD. However, whereas LVEF is not associated with shock, a linear relationship exists between LVEDD and appropriate shock. LVEDD adds more predictive value in relation to all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks than LVEF. MDPI 2022-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9782887/ /pubmed/36547418 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9120421 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Cheng, Sijing
Deng, Yu
Huang, Hao
Liu, Xi
Yu, Yu
Chen, Xuhua
Gu, Min
Niu, Hongxia
Hua, Wei
Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title_full Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title_fullStr Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title_short Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD
title_sort prognostic implications of left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter on clinical outcomes in patients with icd
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36547418
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9120421
work_keys_str_mv AT chengsijing prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT dengyu prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT huanghao prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT liuxi prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT yuyu prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT chenxuhua prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT gumin prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT niuhongxia prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd
AT huawei prognosticimplicationsofleftventricularejectionfractionandleftventricularenddiastolicdiameteronclinicaloutcomesinpatientswithicd