This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bailey, J. J. Articles by Church, T. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bailey, J. J. Articles by Church, T. R. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Heart Attack Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decision to Implant a Cardioverter Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction: The Role of Ejection Fraction v. Other Risk Factor Markers

Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, jjbailey{at}helix.nih.gov

Morrison Hodges, MD, FACC

Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

Timothy R. Church, PhD

University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Background . The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial showed that in post—myocardial infarction patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) 0.30, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) resulted in a 31% relative reduction in the risk of death when compared with a conventional therapy group. Whether further refinement in risk estimation could be achieved with additional clinical testing to qualify patients for primary prevention with ICDs remains problematic. Methods . The authors analyzed Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial registry data to estimate sensitivity and specificity of EF, ventricular premature frequency, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia for predicting death. They combined the results with similar data from the literature and used summarizing receiver operating characteristic (meta-ROC) curves to estimate overall operational values for sensitivity and specificity for each clinical test. They estimated aggregate values for prior probability to project risks when tests were used singly and in combination. Results. The authors used arrhythmia markers and heart rate variability to further stratify low-EF patients (prior risk = 20.3%); proportionately, 20.4% were predicted at high risk (>30%) and 40.5% at low risk (<10%). When heart rate variability is normal, those at high risk reduced proportionately to 9.2%, and those at low risk increased to 51.6%. Conclusions . The combined use of noninvasive markers for arrhythmia substrate and altered autonomic tone can improve risk stratification in low EF without optimal beta-block therapy, whereas for those with optimal beta-block therapy, markers for arrhythmia substrate alone work. Ancillary use of electrophysiologic stimulation can improve results.

Key Words: arrhythmia • implantable cardioverter defibrillator • risk stratification • myocardial infarction • sudden cardiac death

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 27, No. 2, 151-160 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297392


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?