[Behavioral and biochemical effects of lesions of the raphe on rat-mouse interspecific aggressive behavior].

M. Vergnes,G. Mack,E. Kempf

IF: 3.61

Brain Research

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Mohammed Al-Sadawi,Chad Gier,Michael Tao,Matthew Henriques,Paul Kim,Faisal Aslam,Ibrahim Almasry,Abhijeet Singh,Roger Fan,Eric Rashba

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.06.047

IF: 3.133

2024-02-01

The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is controversial in patients who have heart failure with improved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% after implantation (HFimpEF).METHODS: Databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were queried for studies in patients with ICD that reported the association between HFimpEF and arrhythmic events (AEs), defined as the combined incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD intervention, and sudden cardiac death (primary composite end point).RESULTS: A total of 41 studies and 38,572 patients (11,135 with HFimpEF, 27,437 with persistent EF ≤35%) were included; mean follow-up was 43 months. HFimpEF was associated with decreased AEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.47; annual rate [AR] 4.1% vs 8%, p <0.01). Super-responders (EF ≥50%) had less risk of AEs than did patients with more modest reverse remodeling (EF >35% and <50%, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, AR 2.7% vs 6.2%, p <0.01). Patients with HFimpEF who had an initial primary-prevention indication had less risk of AEs (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.61, AR 5.1% vs 10.3%, p <0.01). Among patients with primary prevention who had never received appropriate ICD therapy at the time of generator change, HFimpEF was associated with decreased subsequent AEs (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, AR 1.6% vs 4.8%, p <0.01). In conclusion, HFimpEF is associated with reduced, but not eliminated, risk for AEs in patients with ICDs. The decision to replace an ICD in subgroups at less risk should incorporate shared decision making based on risks for subsequent AEs and procedural complications.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction: individual participant data from pooled cohorts

Niels Peek,Gerhard Hindricks,Artur Akbarov,Jan G P Tijssen,David A Jenkins,Zoher Kapacee,Le Mai Parkes,Rob J van der Geest,Enrico Longato,Daniel Sprague,Youssef Taleb,Marcus Ong,Christopher A Miller,Alireza Sepehri Shamloo,Christine Albert,Petra Barthel,Serge Boveda,Frieder Braunschweig,Jens Brock Johansen,Nancy Cook,Christian de Chillou,Petra Elders,Jonas Faxén,Tim Friede,Laura Fusini,Chris P Gale,Jiri Jarkovsky,Xavier Jouven,Juhani Junttila,Josef Kautzner,Antti Kiviniemi,Valentina Kutyifa,Christophe Leclercq,Daniel C Lee,Jill Leigh,Radosław Lenarczyk,Francisco Leyva,Michael Maeng,Andrea Manca,Eloi Marijon,Ursula Marschall,Jose Luis Merino,Lluis Mont,Jens Cosedis Nielsen,Thomas Olsen,Julie Pester,Gianluca Pontone,Ivo Roca,Georg Schmidt,Peter J Schwartz,Christian Sticherling,Mahmoud Suleiman,Milos Taborsky,Hanno L Tan,Jacob Tfelt-Hansen,Holger Thiele,Gordon F Tomaselli,Tom Verstraelen,Manickavasagar Vinayagamoorthy,Kevin Kris Warnakula Olesen,Arthur Wilde,Rik Willems,Katherine C Wu,Markus Zabel,Glen P Martin,Nikolaos Dagres

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae326

2024-10-08

Abstract:Background and aims: Risk stratification of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction and prevention by defibrillator rely on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Improved risk stratification across the whole LVEF range is required for decision-making on defibrillator implantation. Methods: The analysis pooled 20 data sets with 140 204 post-myocardial infarction patients containing information on demographics, medical history, clinical characteristics, biomarkers, electrocardiography, echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Separate analyses were performed in patients (i) carrying a primary prevention cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF ≤ 35% [implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients], (ii) without cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF ≤ 35% (non-ICD patients ≤ 35%), and (iii) without cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF > 35% (non-ICD patients >35%). Primary outcome was sudden cardiac death or, in defibrillator carriers, appropriate defibrillator therapy. Using a competing risk framework and systematic internal-external cross-validation, a model using LVEF only, a multivariable flexible parametric survival model, and a multivariable random forest survival model were developed and externally validated. Predictive performance was assessed by random effect meta-analysis. Results: There were 1326 primary outcomes in 7543 ICD patients, 1193 in 25 058 non-ICD patients ≤35%, and 1567 in 107 603 non-ICD patients >35% during mean follow-up of 30.0, 46.5, and 57.6 months, respectively. In these three subgroups, LVEF poorly predicted sudden cardiac death (c-statistics between 0.50 and 0.56). Considering additional parameters did not improve calibration and discrimination, and model generalizability was poor. Conclusions: More accurate risk stratification for sudden cardiac death and identification of low-risk individuals with severely reduced LVEF or of high-risk individuals with preserved LVEF was not feasible, neither using LVEF nor using other predictors.
Prognostic yield of echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function in HFrEF patients with vs without an ICD or CRT-D

L Witten Davodian,J Christensen,M Sengeloev,C Johnsen,P G Joergensen,N E Bruun,T Fritz-Hansen,E Wolsk,S M Sattler,N D Johansen,T Biering-Soerensen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.048

IF: 39.3

2024-10-28

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Selected echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function are known to be associated with mortality in patients with Heart Failure with reduced Left Ventricular (LV) Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). Whether the predictive ability of measures of cardiac structure and function remain after implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Defibrillator (CRT-D) is unknown among patients with HFrEF. Purpose To compare the predictive ability of echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function in HFrEF patients with or without an ICD/CRT-D. Methods Echocardiographic examinations were performed between 2003 and 2013 and retrieved from 2168 patients with HFrEF. Patients that had an ICD or CRT-D implanted during follow-up were identified through registries. The endpoint was all-cause mortality and follow-up was 100% to date. Images were analyzed offline in accordance with current guidelines. Associations were assessed by Cox multivariable regression and Cox univariable interaction models. Results After a median of 169 days, 677 patients had an ICD or CRT-D implanted. In total, 68% vs 80% of patients with and without an ICD, respectively, were men (p<0.001) and the median age were 70 vs 71 years (p=0.192). There was a significant difference in resting heart rate (median 74 vs 69, p<0.001) and frequency of ischemic heart disease (64% vs 81%, p<0.001) between the groups. Patients with an ICD had a higher mortality rate (69 per 1000 people/year vs 92 per 1000 people/year, p<0.001) and died significantly faster (median 9.3 vs 8.2 years, p<0.001). Patients with an ICD had higher Left Atrial (LA) End Systolic Volume (59.2 vs 67.3, p<0.001), LA Volume Index (28.5 vs 33.9, p<0.001), LV End Diastolic Volume (137.7 vs 153.7, p<0.001), and LV Mass Index (114.5 vs 124.5, p<0.001), as well as lower LA strain (9.8 vs 6.3, p<0.001) and TAPSE (2.0 vs 1.7, p<0.001). In patients without an ICD, Right Ventricular strain was associated with mortality (HR = 1.05 per 1% decrease mm/m2 [1.005, 1.11] when adjusting for covariates whereas in patients with an ICD, LA Volume Index (HR 1.14 per 1 increase [1.03, 1.25], and LV Ejection Fraction (HR 0.96 per 1% increase [0.92, 0.99]) were associated with mortality when adjusting for covariates. ICD/CRT-D implantation significantly modified the prognostic yield of LV End Diastolic Volume (HR per 1 ml increase: 0.99 without vs 1.01 with an ICD/CRT-D, p=0.005) and LV Mass Index (HR per 1 g/m2 increase: 1.00 without and 1.01 with an ICD/CRT-D, p=0.031). Conclusion Different echocardiographic measures were stronger prognosticators in HFrEF patients with and without an ICD or CRT-D, respectively, and ICD implantation modified the prognostic yield of LV End Diastolic Volume and LV Mass Index in HFrEF patients.Table 1Forest plot

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in China: A Regional Analysis from the Improve SCA Clinical Trial

Dejia Huang,Yanchun Liang,Shu Zhang,Zhihui Zhang,Farong Shen,Jingfeng Wang,Liangrong Zheng,Baopeng Tang,Yangang Su,MarkL Brown,BrianM Van Dorn,JanetE O'Brien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijhr.ijhr_7_20

2020-01-01

International Journal of Heart Rhythm

Abstract:Background: The improve sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) study was a nonrandomized prospective global study that identified a subset of primary prevention (PP) patients at an elevated risk for SCA labeled 1.5PP. These 1.5PP patients had one or more of the following additional risk factors: Syncope, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, premature ventricular contractions >10/h, and left ventricular ejection fraction <25%. The purpose of this sub-analysis was to examine the China population cohort according to the improve SCA study's primary and secondary objectives. We aim to analyze the improve SCA study objective outcomes explicitly in the Chinese cohort to better understand the utility of PP implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in China. Subjects and Methods: The improve SCA study enrolled patients (n = 4222) during March 2014 and July 2017, including 87 sites in 17 countries from the geographies of Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In this analysis, the China cohort of improve SCA patients (n = 1654) was analyzed according to the objectives of the main study; the primary objective compared time to first appropriate ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) therapy between 1.5PP (n = 904) and secondary prevention (SP) patients (n = 470). All-cause mortality rates of 1.5PP with ICDs versus no implant, and an analysis of ischemic versus nonischemic results (n = 280) were also analyzed. PP patients without an additional risk factor were labeled 1.0PP (n = 280). Cox-proportional hazards model was used for hazard ratio (HR) calculations. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating institution and the associated national and local regulatory agencies, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02099721). Results: The time to first VT/VF therapy for 1.5PP was not within 30% of SP (HR = 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31–0.56, P < 0.0001). However, there was a 49% reduction (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35–0.74, P = 0.0004) in all-cause mortality in the 1.5PP implanted versus nonimplanted patients, and a 70% reduction (HR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09–0.99, P = 0.05) in 1.0PP implanted patients. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) 1.5PP patients showed a 51% reduction (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.34–0.77, P = 0.0012) in all-cause mortality compared to those who did not receive an ICD implant. Conclusion: The China populations of 1.0PP and 1.5PP patients obtain a significant benefit with implantable defibrillation therapy.
Abstract 12506: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Patients With Ischemic and Non Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis of 15 Randomized Controlled Trial

Vikash Jaiswal,Akash Jaiswal,Amira Mohamed Taha,Kriti Kalra,Yusra Nasir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.12506

IF: 37.8

2023-11-07

Circulation

Abstract:Background: The evidence to support implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is not robust, with conflicting results in randomized controlled trials. Objective: We aim to evaluate the impact of ICD therapy with conventional care for the primary prevention of death of various causes in adults with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search on the electronic database for relevant articles from inception until 15th May 2022. Results: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials involving 9,999 patients: 9 (6523 patients) addressed ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 6 studies (3476 patients) reported nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The mean follow-up duration was 3.02 years. Pooled analysis showed that ICD therapy significantly reduced the risk of ACM (HR, 0.75(95%CI: 0.64-0.88), P<0.001) from the control group. The magnitude of reduction was similar with ischemic (HR, 0.75(95%CI: 0.58-0.96), P=0.02), nonischemic (HR, 0.76(95%CI: 0.64-0.90), P<0.01). There was 67% reduction in SCD among ICD therapy group (OR, 0.33(95%CI: 0.25-0.44), P<0.00001) compared to the control, a similar trend was observed in both ischemic (OR, 0.39(95%CI: 0.28-0.56), P<0.00001), and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.24(95%CI: 0.15-0.38), P<0.00001). The ICD therapy group had a significant reduction of 65% reduction in arrhythmia-related death compared to control in ischemic cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.35(95%CI: 0.19-0.64), P<0.001). However, there was a trend of 23% in cardiovascular mortality in the ICD group (OR, 0.77(95%CI: 0.58-1.02), P=0.07) but unable to reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Overall, primary prevention with ICD therapy reduced the incidence of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death among ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: a single center experience

ZHU Liang-feng,HU Xiao-sheng,ZHENG Liang-rong,TAO Qian-min,CHEN Jun-zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6880.2013.01.002

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the clinical application of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) / cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) for primary prevention in sudden cardiac death (SCD) high-risk Chinese patients. Methods Eighty patients treated with ICD / CRT-D implantation for primary prevention of SCD in our unit between 2009 and 2011 were enrolled in the study. Single-chamber or dual-chamber ICDs were implanted in 33 cases and CRT-D in 47 cases. Of the 80 cases, 44 (55.0%) had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and 22 (27.5%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy. All the patients were followed up at one and three months after implantation, and every six months thereafter or when prompted by an ICD event. Results During an average follow-up of 23 ± 7 months, 11 (13.7%) patients had unplanned readmis sions and 4 (5.0% ) died. Thirty-eight ICD therapy events were recorded, including 26 appropriate ICD therapies and 12 inappropriate therapies, of the later were due to atrial fibrillation. Conclusions ICD / CRT-D for primary prevention of SCD may recognize malignant rapidarrhythmia in a short time so that the patients can be treated timely. Therefore, it can reduce the sudden cardiac death rate in high-risk patients.
Interaction between electrical storm and left ventricular ejection fraction as predictors of mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A Chinese cohort study

Zhengqin Zhai,Shuang Zhao,Xiaoyao Li,Keping Chen,Wei Xu,Wei Hua,Yangang Su,Min Tang,Zeyi Li,Shu Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.937655

IF: 3.6

2022-07-30

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Aims: To determine the interaction of electrical storm (ES) and impaired left ventircular ejection fraction (LVEF) on the mortality risk of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Methods and results: A total of 554 Chinese ICD recipients from 2010 to 2014 were retrospectively included and the mean follow-up was 58 months. The proportions of dilated cardiomyopathy and the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy were 26.0% (144/554) and 5.6% (31/554), respectively. There were 8 cases with long QT syndrome, 6 with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and 2 with Brugada syndrome. Patients with prior MI accounted for 15.5% (86/554) and pre-implantation syncope accounted for 23.3% (129/554). A total of 199 (35.9%) patients had primary prevention indications for ICD therapy. Both ES and impaired LVEF (<40%) were independent predictors for all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.57–3.68, P < 0.001; HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.30–2.90, P = 0.001, respectively] and cardiovascular mortality (HR 4.63, 95% CI 2.68–7.98, P < 0.001; HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.47–4.44, p = 0.001, respectively). Compared with patients with preserved LVEF (≥40%) and without ES, patients with impaired LVEF and ES had highest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risks (HR 4.17, 95% CI 2.16–8.06, P < 0.001; HR 11.91, 95% CI 5.55–25.56, P < 0.001, respectively). In patients with impaired LVEF, ES increased the all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risks (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.00–3.37, P = 0.034; HR 4.86, 95% CI 2.39–9.86, P < 0.001, respectively). In patients with ES, the deleterious effects of impaired LVEF seemed confined to cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.25–5.14, p = 0.038), and the HR for all-cause mortality was not significant statistically (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.54–2.38, P = 0.735). Conclusion: Both ES and impaired LVEF are independent predictors of mortality risk in this Chinese cohort of ICD recipients. The interaction of ES and impaired LVEF in patients significantly amplifies the deleterious effects of each other as distinct disease.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Whether to implant a defibrillator or not? The Possibility of Using the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score Calculator in Real Practice

N. N. Ilov,S. A. Boytsov,A. A. Nechepurenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18087/cardio.2024.2.n2447

2024-02-29

Kardiologiia

Abstract:Aim . To study the predictive capabilities of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator in assessing the benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Material and methods . This study included 388 patients with NYHA II-IV functional class chronic heart failure (CHF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 % who underwent ICD placement for the primary prevention of SCD. Patients were followed up for two years to record the endpoints of first-time paroxysmal sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) or non-arrhythmic death. Results . According to the results of calculation with the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score calculator, 276 (71 %) patients had a high risk of VT (score ≥7) and 150 (39 %) had a high risk of non-arrhythmic death (score ≥3). 336 (94%) patients would benefit from an ICD: 148 (38 %) with a high level of probability and 218 (56 %) with a medium level of probability. According to the incidence of endpoints, VT episodes predominated in the low-ICD benefit group (36%), while the high-ICD benefit group had a relatively high incidence of non-arrhythmic death (12%). Conclusion . The results obtained for a cohort of Russian patients with CHF and reduced LVEF indicated that the use of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in routine clinical practice does not improve the stratification of SCD risk compared to the traditional approach to selecting patients with CHF for ICD based on the LVEF value.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Baseline and Dynamic Risk Predictors of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.

Katherine C. Wu,Shannon Wongvibulsin,Susumu Tao,Hiroshi Ashikaga,Michael Stillabower,Timm M. Dickfeld,Joseph E. Marine,Robert G. Weiss,Gordon F. Tomaselli,Scott L. Zeger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.017002

IF: 6.106

2020-10-09

Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract:Background Current approaches fail to separate patients at high versus low risk for ventricular arrhythmias owing to overreliance on a snapshot left ventricular ejection fraction measure. We used statistical machine learning to identify important cardiac imaging and time‐varying risk predictors. Methods and Results Three hundred eighty‐two cardiomyopathy patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) underwent cardiac magnetic resonance before primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion. The primary end point was appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge or sudden death. Patient characteristics; serum biomarkers of inflammation, neurohormonal status, and injury; and cardiac magnetic resonance‐measured left ventricle and left atrial indices and myocardial scar burden were assessed at baseline. Time‐varying covariates comprised interval heart failure hospitalizations and left ventricular ejection fractions. A random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes incorporating baseline and time‐varying variables was compared with (1) Seattle Heart Failure model scores and (2) random forest survival and Cox regression models incorporating baseline characteristics with and without imaging variables. Age averaged 57±13 years with 28% women, 66% white, 51% ischemic, and follow‐up time of 5.9±2.3 years. The primary end point (n=75) occurred at 3.3±2.4 years. Random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes with baseline and time‐varying predictors had the highest area under the receiver operating curve, median 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75‐0.96). Top predictors comprised heart failure hospitalization, left ventricle scar, left ventricle and left atrial volumes, left atrial function, and interleukin‐6 level; heart failure accounted for 67% of the variation explained by the prediction, imaging 27%, and interleukin‐6 2%. Serial left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant predictor. Conclusions Hospitalization for heart failure and baseline cardiac metrics substantially improve ventricular arrhythmic risk prediction. Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms LGE late gadolinium enhancement RF‐SLAM random forest survival, longitudinal and multivariate outcomes SCD sudden cardiac death SI signal intensity Clinical Perspective What Is New? In primary prevention implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients, an interim hospitalization for heart failure identified a group at high risk for subsequent ventricular arrhythmia defined as an appropriate ICD shock. Among ICD recipients without heart failure hospitalizations, baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging metrics (specifically, left ventricle heterogeneous gray and total scar, left ventricle and left atrial volumes, and left atrial total emptying fraction) as well as serum interleukin‐6 levels were the strongest predictors of subsequent appropriate ICD shock; serial left ventricle ejection fraction did not provide additional prognostic value for the arrhythmic outcome. Machine learning statistical methods may improve risk score development by accounting for complex and dynamic interactions among risk variables and temporally varying risk. What Are the Clinical Implications? The combination of clinical heart failure course, baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging metrics, and levels of the inflammatory biomarker interleukin‐6 can most accurately stratify subsequent high versus low ventricular arrhythmic risk and may be useful for decision‐making as primary prevention ICD recipients approach elective generator change. Identifying patients most at risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a clinical challenge. 1 Current guidelines directing the use of primary prevention implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICDs) rely on a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which has low predictive efficiency. 1 Estimated annualized rates of appropriat -Abstract Truncated-

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Early ICD implantation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective cohort study from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Sultanian,P.,Lundgren,P.,Rawshani,A.,Möller,S.,Jafari,A. H.,David,L.,Yassinson,S.,Myredal,A.,Rorsman,C.,Taha,A.,Ravn-Fischer,A.,Martinsson,A.,Herlitz,J.,Rawshani,A.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077137

IF: 3.006

2024-02-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background It is unclear whether an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is generally beneficial in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Objective We studied the association between ICD implantation prior to discharge and survival in patients with cardiac aetiology or initial shockable rhythm in OHCA. Design We conducted a retrospective cohort study in the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Treatment associations were estimated using propensity scores. We used gradient boosting, Bayesian additive regression trees, neural networks, extreme gradient boosting and logistic regression to generate multiple propensity scores. We selected the model yielding maximum covariate balance to obtain weights, which were used in a Cox regression to calculate HRs for death or recurrent cardiac arrest. Participants All cases discharged alive during 2010 to 2020 with a cardiac aetiology or initial shockable rhythm were included. A total of 959 individuals were discharged with an ICD, and 2046 were discharged without one. Results Among those experiencing events, 25% did so within 90 days in the ICD group, compared with 52% in the other group. All HRs favoured ICD implantation. The overall HR (95% CI) for ICD versus no ICD was 0.38 (0.26 to 0.56). The HR was 0.42 (0.28 to 0.63) in cases with initial shockable rhythm; 0.18 (0.06 to 0.58) in non-shockable rhythm; 0.32 (0.20 to 0.53) in cases with a history of coronary artery disease; 0.36 (0.22 to 0.61) in heart failure and 0.30 (0.13 to 0.69) in those with diabetes. Similar associations were noted in all subgroups. Conclusion Among survivors of OHCA, those discharged with an ICD had approximately 60% lower risk of death or recurrent cardiac arrest. A randomised trial is warranted to study this further.

medicine, general & internal
Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with a left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A Rahhal,F Alasad,A Aljundi,H Mohammad,A Aburamadan,A Chapra,A Mahfouz,S Alyafei,C Carr,A Alkhulaifi,A Omar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1120

IF: 39.3

2024-10-28

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and prevent sudden cardiac death. However, the prognostic benefits of ICDs among patients with a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) remain uncertain and controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of ICD implantation among LVAD recipients. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for the peer-reviewed articles published in English assessing the impact of ICD implantation among LVAD recipients, till 10/01/2024. ICD implantation was defined as implantation before LVAD, simultaneous implantation with LVAD, or within 30 days of LVAD insertion. Two independent review authors assessed the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. A random-effect model was used to combine data in forest plots. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality associated with ICD implantation compared to no ICD implantation, and the secondary outcomes included ventricular arrhythmia (VT), and hemorrhagic stroke. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2, with I2 > 50% indicating marked heterogeneity. Results A total of 13 observational studies comprising 54571 recipients of LVAD were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. All-cause mortality was similar among patients with ICD versus no ICD (Odds Ratio [OR]= 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.04, I2= 89%, P=0.09), as shown in Figure 1. Likewise, ICD implantation was associated with similar rates of VT and hemorrhagic stroke (VT: OR= 1.81, 95% Cl, 0.82-4.01, I2= 90%, P=0.14; hemorrhagic stroke: OR= 1.01, 95% Cl, 0.81-1.25, I2= 0%, P= 0.95). Conclusion Among patients with HFrEF and LVAD as advanced heart failure therapy, ICD implantation didn't provide additional prognostic survival benefit, suggesting possible use of LVAD without ICD implantation.Figure 1.Forest plot of mortality

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparison of the Benefit of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Ischemic Versus Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Kun Wang,Xinyue Xu,Yihang Qi,Yihai Liu,Lina Kang,Xiaohong Li,Rongfang Lan,Lian Wang,Wei Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160563641.10787746/v1

2020-01-01

Abstract:Introduction: Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) share common structural alterations with a high mortality from sudden cardiac death (SCD) and pump failure. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has, since inclusion in international guidelines, been confirmed beneficial and cost-effective for primary prevention of SCD in patients with ICM, while huge debates in non-ischemic heart disease. This study was to compare the primary prophylactic value of ICD therapy in patients with ICM or DCM to identify a subgroup with greater advantage specially. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study, which enrolled 82 patients with ICM or DCM and guideline indications for primary prophylactic ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). Primary end-point was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes included SCD and cardiovascular death. Results: During a median follow-up of 38.5 months, 78 patients baseline data were analyzable. The primary outcome occurred in 8 patients in ICM group and 5 patients in DCM group (p = 0.012). Cardiovascular death occurred in 5 patients in ICM group and 3 patients in DCM group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.119, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.016-0.860, P = 0.035]. Resuscitated cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia occurred in 4 patients in ICM group and 8 patients in DCM group (HR 0.294, 95% CI 0.040-2.144, P = 0.227). Conclusions: DCM patients with ICD implantation could gain more benefit with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease compared with ICM patients, while the occurrence of SCD had no difference in two groups.
Diagnosis of allied functional bowel disorders using monoclonal antibodies and electronmicroscopy.

P. Puri,T. Fujimoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3468(88)80366-X

IF: 2.549

1988-06-01

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

Abstract:
Prophylactic ICD Survival Benefit Prediction: Review and Comparison between Main Scores

Moshe Rav-Acha,Ziv Dadon,Arik Wolak,Tal Hasin,Ilan Goldenberg,Michael Glikson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175307

2024-09-07

Abstract:Current guidelines advocate for the use of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for all patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with low ejection fraction (EF). As many patients will never use their device and some are prone to device-related complications, scoring systems for delineating subgroups with differential ICD survival benefits are crucial to maximize ICD benefit and mitigate complications. This review summarizes the main scores, including MADIT trial-based Risk Stratification Score (MRSS) and Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), which are based on randomized trials with a control group (HF medication only) and validated on large cohorts of 'real-world' HF patients. Recent studies using cardiac MRI (CMR) to predict ventricular arrhythmia (VA) are mentioned as well. The review shows that most scores could not delineate sustained VA incidence, but rather mortality without prior appropriate ICD therapies. Multiple scores could identify high-risk subgroups with extremely high probability of early mortality after ICD implant. On the other hand, low-risk subgroups were defined, in whom a high ratio of appropriate ICD therapy versus death without prior appropriate ICD therapy was found, suggesting significant ICD survival benefit. Moreover, MRSS and SHFM proved actual ICD survival benefit in low- and medium-risk subgroups when compared with control patients, and no benefit in high-risk subgroups, consisting of 16-20% of all ICD candidates. CMR reliably identified areas of myocardial scar and 'channels', significantly associated with VA. We conclude that as for today, multiple scoring models could delineate patient subgroups that would benefit differently from prophylactic ICD. Due to their modest-moderate predictability, these scores are still not ready to be implemented into clinical guidelines, but could aid decision regarding prophylactic ICD in borderline cases, as elderly patients and those with multiple co-morbidities. CMR is a promising technique which might help delineate patients with a low- versus high-risk for future VA, beyond EF alone. Lastly, genetic analysis could identify specific mutations in a non-negligible percent of patients, and a few of these mutations were found to predict an increased arrhythmic risk.
Sudden Cardiac Death in Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy and the Primary Prevention ICD: Time for a More a Personalised Approach?

Saad M Ezad,Girish Babu,Peter O’Kane

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2022.14

2023-04-05

Abstract:Guidelines recommend primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (PPICD) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% only after 3 months of optimal medical therapy (OMT) or 6 weeks after acute MI with persistent LVEF dysfunction. A 73-year-old woman presented with decompensated heart failure secondary to ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Severe coronary disease with sufficient dysfunctional myocardial segments on cardiac MRI suggested potential benefit from revascularisation. Following discussion with the heart team, she underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PPICD implantation was deferred as per guideline recommendations. However, 20 days post-PCI, the patient died from malignant ventricular arrhythmia captured on a Holter monitor. This case demonstrates that some high-risk patients may not receive a potentially life-saving PPICD if guidelines are stringently adhered to. We highlight evidence that LVEF alone is of limited value in a risk assessment of arrhythmogenic death, and postulate that a more personalised ICD prescription should be considered using scar characteristics on cardiac MRI to prompt upstream ICD implantation in high-risk patients.
Survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication in single-center trial 5 years follow-up

Wenqing Zhu,Jin Bai,Wei Wang,Yan Wu,Yangang Su,Junbo Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-6638.2015.01.008

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the outcome of 5-year survival in implantable cardioverter defibril-lator(ICD)indication patients with or without ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator(CRT-D)im-plantation. Method Patients with ICD indication were consecutively recruited. The basic information,examina-tion results and treatment state were recorded. We got the information of vicious incidents or death of the pa-tients mainly by telephone. Results One hundred fifhy-two patients were enrolled for the study. Twenty six pa-tients were undergoing implantation, including 11 for primary and 15 for secondary prevention ( 9. 3% vs. 44. 1% P<0. 001). Twenty three patients missed and 33 patients died during 5-year follow-up. All-cause mor-tality in patients with ICD implantation was significant lower than that in patients without ICD implantation (7. 7% vs. 30. 1% P=0. 016). While the survival curve did not show statistical difference(P=0. 09). Logis-tic regression shown that left ventricular ejection fraction( LVEF) and ICD/CRT-D implantation both had a posi-tive correlation with survival rate(P=0. 01 and P=0. 015). Conclusion ICD/CRT-D can improve the long-term survival rate in patients with ICD indication. LVEF is a sensitive predictor for 5-year survival rate.
How Overall Health Status and Insurance Influence Utilization of the Primary Prevention Implantable Defibrillator in the Current Era

Lin Zhang,Kumar Narayanan,Harpriya Chugh,Shiota Takahiro,Zhi-Jie Zheng,Sumeet S. Chugh

IF: 37.8

2014-01-01

Circulation

Abstract:Introduction: The benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction is well established. However, several studies have reported that not all eligible patients receive this therapy. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that co-morbid health conditions and nature of health insurance play a role in the utilization patterns of the primary prevention ICD. Methods: Patients eligible for PPICD based on current guidelines were analyzed from the electronic medical records of a large US tertiary care center. Demographic and clinical data as well as insurance status were reviewed in detail for ICD recipients before implantation compared to ICD non-recipients. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated and categorized as low(0-1), medium(2-6) and high(7-12). Results: Over an 8-month period, comparisons were made between 110 recipients and 110 non-recipients. ICD recipients were younger (62.1±15.0 vs. 68.0±18.2; P=0.009), with higher proportion of males (80% vs. 65.5%; P=0.01), and higher BMI (27.8±7.7 vs. 24.3±6.9; P=0.001). Compared to ICD non-recipients, ICD recipients were more likely to have lower comorbidities (high CCI 5.5 % vs. 11.8%; P=0.05) and lower LVEF (23.8±6.4 vs. 25.3±7.2; P=0.04). ICD recipients were less likely to be current alcohol users (5.5% vs. 8.2%; P=0.05), smokers (5.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.03) or have history of drug abuse (0.9% vs. 5.5%; P=0.02). ICD recipients were more likely to have combined public and private insurance (29.1% vs. 18.2%, P=0.03), and less likely to have public insurance alone (28.2% vs. 32.7%, P=0.05). In multivariable model, independent predictors of implantation included male sex (OR 2.23[1.15-4.33]; P=0.02), age Conclusions: Our findings suggest that age, sex and co-morbid conditions continue to determine ICD utilization in real world clinical practice, with insurance status also playing a role. This important area warrants significant further investigation in diverse US communities.
Factors Influencing Utilization of the Primary Prevention Implantable Defibrillator.

Lin Zhang,Kumar Narayanan,Harpriya Chugh,Takahiro Shiota,Zhi-Jie Zheng,Sumeet S. Chugh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121515

IF: 3.7

2015-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND:A growing literature suggests underutilization of the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD); thus, factors influencing utilization need to be understood. We performed a comprehensive assessment of patient characteristics and health insurance status among subjects eligible for primary prevention ICD in a tertiary care center.METHODS:From among a group of patients who met criteria for primary prevention ICD based on left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), ICD recipients (n = 110) were compared to ICD non-recipients (n = 110) to identify determinants of ICD implantation. We evaluated demographics, clinical profile including Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI, categorized as low (≤3) or high (>3)] and health insurance status.RESULTS:ICD recipients were younger (62.1±15.0 vs. 68.0±18.2; P = 0.01), with more males (80% vs. 65.5%; P = 0.01), higher NYHA class (II/III: 75.5% vs. 40.2%; P<0.001) and more likely to have supplemental private health insurance (61.8% vs. 46.4%; P = 0.02). CCI was not significantly different between the two groups (low CCI 61.8% vs. 62.7%; P = 0.89). In multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with ICD implantation were male sex (OR, 2.77, [1.31-5.85]; P = 0.01), age<75 (OR, 2.68, [1.30-5.50]; P = 0.01), private insurance (OR, 2.17, [1.08-4.36], P = 0.03) and NYHA Class II/III (OR, 5.91, [2.91-12.01]; P<0.001). Documentation of discussion about primary prevention ICD was absent in the majority (57.2%) of non-recipients.CONCLUSION:In a contemporary urban tertiary care setting, age, sex and heart failure symptom class were associated with ICD utilization, with socioeconomic/insurance status also potentially playing a role. These findings have implications for optimizing appropriate utilization of the prophylactic ICD and warrant follow-up in larger, more diverse populations.
Picosecond fluorescence from photosynthetic systems in vivo.

G. Searle,C. Tredwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470720431.CH14

1978-02-07

Abstract:Picosecond time-resolved fluorescence emission from the pigments of intact photosynthetic systems and isolated pigment-protein fractions has been used to probe the mechanism of energy transfer and the organization of the pigments. The fluorescence kinetics of chlorophyll and the phycobilins of the red alga, Porphyridium cruentum, are governed by time-dependent kinetics, but the observed time dependence of the chlorophyll a fluorescence decay from dark-adapted Chlorella pyrenoidosa and spinach sub-chloroplast fractions is still open to conjecture. In contrast to the green plants containing only chlorophyll and carotenoids, Porphyridium shows distinct emission bands for each the pigments in the transfer sequence. The rate of energy transfer in vivo has the empirical form: dS/dt = -1/2S At-1/2, where S is the excited-state population of the donor pigment and A is the overall rate of energy transfer to the acceptor pigment. The kinetic analysis can describe closely the observed fluorescence risetimes and lifetimes of the photosynthetic pigments of Porphyridium. The extremely rapid rates of energy transfer, determined by this treatment, imply that exciton migration within each pigment bed of the phycobilisome is less extensive than in the chlorophyll-antenna systems. Changes in the fluorescence yield and decay kinetics of chlorophyll a and allophycocyanin in vivo can be induced at high excitation intensities by exciton-exciton annihilation.
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Older Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Mason Marcus,Paul S Chan,Anping Chang,Robert K Merritt,Bryan McNally,Mark S Link,Saket Girotra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.036123

Abstract:Background: Although current guidelines recommend implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, contemporary data on secondary-prevention ICDs in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest remain limited. Methods and results: Using 2013 to 2019 CARES (Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival) linked to Medicare, we identified 3226 patients aged ≥65 years with an initial shockable rhythm who survived to discharge without severe neurological disability. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were used to examine the association between patient variables and ICD placement and quantify hospital variation in ICD implantation. The mean age was 72.2 years, 23.5% were women, 10% were Black individuals, and 4% were Hispanic individuals. Overall, 997 (30.9%) patients received an ICD before discharge, 1266 (39.2%) at 90 days, and 1287 (39.9%) within 6 months. Older age (≥85 years), female sex, history of diabetes, calendar year, and presentation with acute myocardial infarction were associated with lower odds of ICD implantation, but race or ethnicity was not associated with ICD implantation. Among 297 hospitals, the median proportion of survivors receiving ICD at discharge was 28.6% (interquartile range, 20%-50%). The relative odds of ICD implantation varied by 62% across hospitals (median odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.38-1.82]) after adjusting for case mix. Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 3 survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a shockable rhythm received a secondary-prevention ICD before discharge. Although patient variables were associated with ICD implantation, there was no difference by race or ethnicity. Even after adjusting for patient case mix, ICD implantation varied markedly across hospitals.

[Behavioral and biochemical effects of lesions of the raphe on rat-mouse interspecific aggressive behavior].

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction: individual participant data from pooled cohorts

Prognostic yield of echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function in HFrEF patients with vs without an ICD or CRT-D

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in China: A Regional Analysis from the Improve SCA Clinical Trial

Abstract 12506: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Patients With Ischemic and Non Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis of 15 Randomized Controlled Trial

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: a single center experience

Interaction between electrical storm and left ventricular ejection fraction as predictors of mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A Chinese cohort study

Whether to implant a defibrillator or not? The Possibility of Using the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score Calculator in Real Practice

Baseline and Dynamic Risk Predictors of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy.

Early ICD implantation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective cohort study from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with a left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the Benefit of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Ischemic Versus Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Diagnosis of allied functional bowel disorders using monoclonal antibodies and electronmicroscopy.

Prophylactic ICD Survival Benefit Prediction: Review and Comparison between Main Scores

Sudden Cardiac Death in Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy and the Primary Prevention ICD: Time for a More a Personalised Approach?

Survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication in single-center trial 5 years follow-up

How Overall Health Status and Insurance Influence Utilization of the Primary Prevention Implantable Defibrillator in the Current Era

Factors Influencing Utilization of the Primary Prevention Implantable Defibrillator.

Picosecond fluorescence from photosynthetic systems in vivo.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Older Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest