Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Oct;166(4):744-52.
doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.06.023. Epub 2013 Sep 18.

A combined anatomic and electrophysiologic substrate based approach for sudden cardiac death risk stratification

Affiliations
Review

A combined anatomic and electrophysiologic substrate based approach for sudden cardiac death risk stratification

Faisal M Merchant et al. Am Heart J. 2013 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Although left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the primary determinant for sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk stratification, in isolation, LVEF is a sub-optimal risk stratifier. We assessed whether a multi-marker strategy would provide more robust SCD risk stratification than LVEF alone.

Methods: We collected patient-level data (n = 3355) from 6 studies assessing the prognostic utility of microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) testing. Two thirds of the group was used for derivation (n = 2242) and one-third for validation (n = 1113). The discriminative capacity of the multivariable model was assessed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (c-index). The primary endpoint was SCD at 24 months.

Results: In the derivation cohort, 59 patients experienced SCD by 24 months. Stepwise selection suggested that a model based on 3 parameters (LVEF, coronary artery disease and MTWA status) provided optimal SCD risk prediction. In the derivation cohort, the c-index of the model was 0.817, which was significantly better than LVEF used as a single variable (0.637, P < .001). In the validation cohort, 36 patients experienced SCD by 24 months. The c-index of the model for predicting the primary endpoint was again significantly better than LVEF alone (0.774 vs 0.671, P = .020).

Conclusions: A multivariable model based on presence of coronary artery disease, LVEF and MTWA status provides significantly more robust SCD risk prediction than LVEF as a single risk marker. These findings suggest that multi-marker strategies based on different aspects of the electro-anatomic substrate may be capable of improving primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment algorithms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predicted 24 month probability of sudden cardiac death (SCD) based on left ventricle ejection fraction and microvolt T-wave alternans status. The inflection point in the risk of SCD associated with an indeterminate MTWA test is highlighted with the arrow.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting sudden cardiac death at 24 months for the multivariable model based on three clinical parameters (presence of coronary artery disease, left ventricle ejection fraction [LVEF] & microvolt T-wave alternans status) versus either LVEF or MTWA as single variables. In the derivation cohort, the area under the ROC curve (c-index) for the multivariate model (0.817) is significantly greater than both LVEF (0.637) and MTWA (0.716) (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). In the validation cohort, the c-index of the model (0.774) is also significantly better than LVEF (0.671, p = 0.020), and non-significantly greater than MTWA as a lone variable (0.729, p = 0.170).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier event-free survival curves for the primary endpoint of sudden cardiac death, stratified by predicted SCD risk based on the multivariable model. Using the multivariate model, patients in the validation cohort with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ or > 35% were further stratified into one of three groups based on predicted SCD risk at 24 months: <1%, 1-6% and >6%. The survival curves demonstrate that even among patients stratified by LVEF, there is still significant heterogeneity in SCD risk, which can be accurately predicted by the multivariable model. The number of patients (n) in each predicted risk group is listed. Of note, there were no patients in the LVEF ≤ 35% cohort with predicted SCD risk of <1% at 24 months, and therefore, only 5 curves are plotted. The p value by log-rank test is <0.001, suggesting a significant difference in survival across subgroups.

References

    1. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. The New England journal of medicine. 2002;346(12):877–83. - PubMed
    1. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. The New England journal of medicine. 2005;352(3):225–37. - PubMed
    1. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, 3rd, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008;117(21):e350–408. - PubMed
    1. Raphael C, Briscoe C, Davies J, Ian Whinnett Z, Manisty C, Sutton R, et al. Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart. 2007;93(4):476–82. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fishman GI, Chugh SS, Dimarco JP, Albert CM, Anderson ME, Bonow RO, et al. Sudden cardiac death prediction and prevention: report from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Heart Rhythm Society Workshop. Circulation. 2010;122(22):2335–48. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms