29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Arrhythmic risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: the PRESERVE EF study

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 7 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 2 , 1
      European Heart Journal
      Oxford University Press
      Myocardial infarction, Preserved ejection fraction, Arrhythmic risk stratification, Two-step approach, Programmed ventricular stimulation

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          Sudden cardiac death (SCD) annual incidence is 0.6–1% in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≥40%. No recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use exist in this population.

          Methods and results

          We introduced a combined non-invasive/invasive risk stratification approach in post-MI ischaemia-free patients, with LVEF ≥ 40%, in a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Patients with at least one positive electrocardiographic non-invasive risk factor (NIRF): premature ventricular complexes, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, late potentials, prolonged QTc, increased T-wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence, were referred for programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS), with ICDs offered to those inducible. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major arrhythmic event (MAE), namely sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, appropriate ICD activation or SCD. We screened and included 575 consecutive patients (mean age 57 years, LVEF 50.8%). Of them, 204 (35.5%) had at least one positive NIRF. Forty-one of 152 patients undergoing PVS (27–7.1% of total sample) were inducible. Thirty-seven (90.2%) of them received an ICD. Mean follow-up was 32 months and no SCDs were observed, while 9 ICDs (1.57% of total screened population) were appropriately activated. None patient without NIRFs or with NIRFs but negative PVS met the primary endpoint. The algorithm yielded the following: sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.8%, positive predictive value 22%, and negative predictive value 100%.

          Conclusion

          The two-step approach of the PRESERVE EF study detects a subpopulation of post-MI patients with preserved LVEF at risk for MAEs that can be effectively addressed with an ICD.

          Clinicaltrials.gov identifier

          NCT02124018

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction.

            Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with various heart conditions who are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Whether benefit occurs in patients early after myocardial infarction is unknown. We conducted the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial, a randomized, open-label comparison of ICD therapy (in 332 patients) and no ICD therapy (in 342 patients) 6 to 40 days after a myocardial infarction. We enrolled patients who had reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.35 or less) and impaired cardiac autonomic function (manifested as depressed heart-rate variability or an elevated average 24-hour heart rate on Holter monitoring). The primary outcome was mortality from any cause. Death from arrhythmia was a predefined secondary outcome. During a mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 30+/-13 months, there was no difference in overall mortality between the two treatment groups: of the 120 patients who died, 62 were in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (hazard ratio for death in the ICD group, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.55; P=0.66). There were 12 deaths due to arrhythmia in the ICD group, as compared with 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.83; P=0.009). In contrast, there were 50 deaths from nonarrhythmic causes in the ICD group and 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 1.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.76; P=0.02). Prophylactic ICD therapy does not reduce overall mortality in high-risk patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction. Although ICD therapy was associated with a reduction in the rate of death due to arrhythmia, that was offset by an increase in the rate of death from nonarrhythmic causes. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defibrillator implantation early after myocardial infarction.

              The rate of death, including sudden cardiac death, is highest early after a myocardial infarction. Yet current guidelines do not recommend the use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) within 40 days after a myocardial infarction for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. We tested the hypothesis that patients at increased risk who are treated early with an ICD will live longer than those who receive optimal medical therapy alone. This randomized, prospective, open-label, investigator-initiated, multicenter trial registered 62,944 unselected patients with myocardial infarction. Of this total, 898 patients were enrolled 5 to 31 days after the event if they met certain clinical criteria: a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ( or = 150 beats per minute) during Holter monitoring (criterion 2: 208 patients), or both criteria (88 patients). Of the 898 patients, 445 were randomly assigned to treatment with an ICD and 453 to medical therapy alone. During a mean follow-up of 37 months, 233 patients died: 116 patients in the ICD group and 117 patients in the control group. Overall mortality was not reduced in the ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.35; P=0.78). There were fewer sudden cardiac deaths in the ICD group than in the control group (27 vs. 60; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.00; P=0.049), but the number of nonsudden cardiac deaths was higher (68 vs. 39; hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.84; P=0.001). Hazard ratios were similar among the three groups of patients categorized according to the enrollment criteria they met (criterion 1, criterion 2, or both). Prophylactic ICD therapy did not reduce overall mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and clinical features that placed them at increased risk. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00157768.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Heart J
                Eur. Heart J
                eurheartj
                European Heart Journal
                Oxford University Press
                0195-668X
                1522-9645
                14 September 2019
                03 May 2019
                03 May 2019
                : 40
                : 35 , Focus Issue on ARRHYTHMIAS
                : 2940-2949
                Affiliations
                [1 ] First Department of Cardiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Hippokrateion Hospital , 114 Vasilissis Sofias avenue, Athens, Attica, Greece
                [2 ] State Department of Cardiology, Hippokrateion Hospital , 114 Vasilissis Sofias avenue, Athens, Attica, Greece
                [3 ] Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete , Panepistimiou street, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
                [4 ] First Cardiology Division, University Hospital of Ioannina, University of Ioannina , Stavros Niarchos avenue, Ioannina, Epirus, Greece
                [5 ] Second Cardiology Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon Hospital , 1 Rimini street, Chaidari, Attica, Greece
                [6 ] Second State Cardiology Department, Evangelismos Hospital , 45-47 Ipsilantou street, Athens, Attica, Greece
                [7 ] Third Cardiology Department, Aristotle University Medical School, Hippokrateion Hospital , 49 Konstantinoupoleos street, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece
                Author notes
                Corresponding author. Tel: (0030)6944580369, Email: kgatzoul@ 123456med.uoa.gr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6628-0303
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4861-2404
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0399-4111
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4228-3593
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-0572
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0885-9170
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7158-4950
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4789-9688
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5004-6635
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-7883
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8200-4050
                Article
                ehz260
                10.1093/eurheartj/ehz260
                6748724
                31049557
                b8d2a013-f96f-4754-8a32-d9b14ec7a231
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 13 October 2018
                : 26 December 2018
                : 10 April 2019
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: Medtronic Hellas S.A. Notably
                Categories
                Clinical Research
                Arrhythmia/Electrophysiology
                Editor's Choice

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                myocardial infarction,preserved ejection fraction,arrhythmic risk stratification,two-step approach, programmed ventricular stimulation

                Comments

                Comment on this article