These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prediction of sudden and non-sudden cardiac death in post-infarction patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction by periodic repolarization dynamics: MADIT-II substudy.
    Author: Rizas KD, McNitt S, Hamm W, Massberg S, Kääb S, Zareba W, Couderc JP, Bauer A.
    Journal: Eur Heart J; 2017 Jul 14; 38(27):2110-2118. PubMed ID: 28431133.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To test the value of Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD), a recently validated electrocardiographic marker of sympathetic activity, as a novel approach to predict sudden cardiac death (SCD) and non-sudden cardiac death (N-SCD) and to improve identification of patients that profit from ICD-implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 856 post-infarction patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤30% of the MADIT-II trial in sinus rhythm. Of these, 507 and 348 patients were randomized to ICD or conventional treatment. PRD was assessed from multipolar 10-min baseline ECGs. Primary and secondary endpoints were total mortality, SCD and N-SCD. Multivariable analyses included treatment group, QRS-duration, New York Heart Association classification, blood-urea nitrogen, diabetes mellitus, beta-blocker therapy and LVEF. During follow-up of 20.4 months, 119 patients died (53 SCD and 36 N-SCD). On multivariable analyses, increased PRD was a significant predictor of mortality (standardized coefficient 1.37[1.19-1.59]; P < 0.001) and SCD (1.40 [1.13-1.75]; P = 0.003) but also predicted N-SCD (1.41[1.10-1.81]; P = 0.006). While increased PRD predicted SCD in conventionally treated patients (1.61[1.23-2.11]; P < 0.001), it was predictive of N-SCD (1.63[1.28-2.09]; P < 0.001) and adequate ICD-therapies (1.20[1.03-1.39]; P = 0.017) in ICD-treated patients. ICD-treatment substantially reduced mortality in the lowest three PRD-quartiles by 53% (P = 0.001). However, there was no effect in the highest PRD-quartile (mortality increase by 29%; P = 0.412; P < 0.001 for difference) as the reduction of SCD was compensated by an increase of N-SCD. CONCLUSION: In post-infarction patients with impaired LVEF, PRD is a significant predictor of SCD and N-SCD. Assessment of PRD is a promising tool to identify post-MI patients with reduced LVEF who might benefit from intensified treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]