Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.

SUBMITTER: Cheng S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9782887 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Cheng Sijing S Deng Yu Y Huang Hao H Liu Xi X Yu Yu Y Chen Xuhua X Gu Min M Niu Hongxia H Hua Wei W

Journal of cardiovascular development and disease 20221128 12

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 cen ...[more]

PMID: 36547418

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the predictive roles of pre-operative left ventricular (LV) size and ejection fraction (EF) in EF improvement and outcome following revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and LV dysfunction.BackgroundRevascularization may improve EF and long-term outcomes of patients with LV dysfunction. However, the determinants of EF improvement have not yet been investigated comprehensively.Materials and methodsPatients with EF measurements before and 3 months after revascularization were enrolled in a cohort study (No. ChiCTR2100044378). All patients had baseline EF ≤ 40%. EF improvement was defined as absolute increase in EF > 5%. According to LV end-systolic diameter (LVESD) (severely enlarged or not) and EF (≤35% or of 36-40%) at baseline, patients were categorized into four groups.ResultsA total of 939 patients were identified. A total of 549 (58.5%) had EF improved. Both LVESD [odds ratio (OR) per 1 mm decrease, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < 0.001] and EF (OR per 1% decrease, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < 0.001) at baseline were predictive of EF improvement after revascularization. Patients with LVESD not severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% had higher odds of being in the EF improved group in comparison with other three groups both in unadjusted and adjusted analysis (all P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 3.5 years. Patients with LVESD not severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% had significantly lower risk of all-cause death in comparison with patients with LVESD severely enlarged and EF ≤ 35% [hazard ratio (HR), 2.73; 95% CI, 1.28-5.82; P = 0.009], and tended to have lower risk in comparison with patients with LVESD severely enlarged and EF of 36-40% (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.93-4.27; P = 0.074).ConclusionAmong CAD patients with reduced EF (≤ 40%) who underwent revascularization, smaller pre-operative LVESD and lower EF had greatest potential to have EF improvement and better outcome. Our findings imply the indication for revascularization in patients with LV dysfunction who presented with lower EF but smaller LV size.

Project description:BackgroundThe prognostic impact and optimal treatment of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with moderate aortic regurgitation (AR) remain unknown. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with moderate AR and explore the potential benefits of aortic valve intervention (AVI).MethodsIn total, 1,211 consecutive patients with moderate AR (jet width, 25-64% of LV outflow tract; vena contracta, 0.3-0.6 cm; regurgitant volume, 30-59 mL/beat; regurgitant fraction, 30-49%; effective regurgitation orifice, 0.10-0.29 cm2) prospectively registered between April and June 2018 at 46 academic hospitals were included. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). The optimal LVEF threshold for predicting the primary outcome was determined through the penalized spline shape and maximally selected rank statistics.ResultsDuring the 2-year follow-up, 125 deaths or HHF occurred. In the penalized splines, the relative hazard of death or HHF monotonically increased with decreasing LVEF. In the multivariate analysis, LVEF ≤55% was identified as the best threshold for independently predicting death or HHF under medical treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-3.42; P = 0.001), with substantial incremental values (integrated discrimination improvement index = 0.018, P = 0.030; net reclassification improvement index = 0.225, P = 0.006; likelihood ratio test P < 0.001). Among patients with LVEF 35-55%, AVI within 6 months of diagnosis was associated with a reduced risk of death or HHF compared with medical treatment alone (adjusted HR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.50; P = 0.002), whereas this benefit was markedly attenuated when LVEF was ≤35% (adjusted HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.21-1.97; P = 0.441, P-interaction = 0.010) or >55% (adjusted HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.14-1.15; P = 0.089, P-interaction = 0.723).ConclusionsLVEF is an independent and incremental prognostic factor in patients with moderate AR, with LVEF ≤55% being a robust marker of poor prognosis. Patients with LVEF 35-55% may benefit from early surgical correction of moderate AR. Further studies are warranted to validate our findings in a randomized setting.RegistrationChina Valvular Heart Disease Study (China-VHD study, NCT03484806); clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03484806.

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets