To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Seattle Heart Failure and… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Seattle Heart Failure and Proportional Risk Models Predict Benefit From Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Journal article
Authors K. C. Bilchick
Y. F. Wang
A. Cheng
J. P. Curtis
K. Dharmarajan
G. J. Stukenborg
R. Shadman
I. Anand
L. H. Lund
U. Dahlstrom
U. Sartipy
A. Maggioni
Karl Swedberg
C. O'Conner
W. C. Levy
Published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume 69
Issue 21
Pages 2606-2618
ISSN 0735-1097
Publication year 2017
Published at Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine
Pages 2606-2618
Language en
Links doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.568
Keywords heart failure, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, risk models, cardiac-resynchronization therapy, primary prevention, prophylactic, implantation, ejection fraction, survival, mortality, death, trial, metaanalysis, association, Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
Subject categories Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Abstract

BACKGROUND Recent clinical trials highlight the need for better models to identify patients at higher risk of sudden death. OBJECTIVES The authors hypothesized that the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) for overall survival and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) for proportional risk of sudden death, including death from ventricular arrhythmias, would predict the survival benefit with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS Patients with primary prevention ICDs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) were compared with control patients with heart failure (HF) without ICDs with respect to 5-year survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Among 98,846 patients with HF (87,914 with ICDs and 10,932 without ICDs), the SHFM was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001). The ICD-SPRM interaction was significant (p < 0.0001), such that SPRM quintile 5 patients had approximately twice the reduction in mortality with the ICD versus SPRM quintile 1 patients (adjusted hazard ratios [HR]: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.537 to 0.675 vs. 0.793; 95% CI: 0.736 to 0.855, respectively). Among patients with SHFM-predicted annual mortality <= 5.7%, those with a SPRM-predicted risk of sudden death below the median had no reduction in mortality with the ICD (adjusted ICD HR: 0.921; 95% CI: 0.787 to 1.08; p = 0.31), whereas those with SPRM above the median derived the greatest benefit (adjusted HR: 0.599; 95% CI: 0.530 to 0.677; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The SHFM predicted all-cause mortality in a large cohort with and without ICDs, and the SPRM discriminated and calibrated the potential ICD benefit. Together, the models identified patients less likely to derive a survival benefit from primary prevention ICDs. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2606-18) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?