ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2020
Arrhythmic risk stratification in heart failure mid-range ejection fraction patients with a non-invasive guiding to programmed ventricular stimulation two-step approach.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk assessment of post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction using 45-min short resting Holter electrocardiographic recordings.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Article
- Association of non-invasive electrocardiographic risk factors with left ventricular systolic function in post-myocardial infarction patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2022Article
- Arrhythmic risk stratification in ischemic, non-ischemic and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A two-step multifactorial, electrophysiology study inclusive approach.World journal of cardiology · 2022Review
- Noninvasive risk factors for the prediction of inducibility on programmed ventricular stimulation in post-myocardial infarction patients with an ejection fraction ≥40% at risk for sudden cardiac arrest: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2022Article
- Modalities for predicting events in patients with ICDs: Expanding the versatility of FDG PET.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Corrigendum.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
- Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: Every Coin Has Two Sides.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Arrhythmic risk stratification in heart failure mid-range ejection fraction patients with a non-invasive guiding to programmed ventricular stimulation two-step approach.Journal of arrhythmia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2021
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough some post myocardial infarction (post-MI) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure (HFmrEF/40%-49%) face an increased risk for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD), current guidelines do not recommend an implantable cardiac defibrilator (ICD). We risk stratified hospitalized HFmrEF patients for SCD with a combined non-invasive risk factors (NIRFs) guiding to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) two-step approach.
methodsForty-eight patients (male = 83%, age = 64 ± 14 years, LVEF = 45 ± 5%, CAD = 69%, DCM = 31%) underwent a NIRFs screening first-step with electrocardiogram (ECG), SAECG, Echocardiography and 24-hour ambulatory ECG (AECG). Thirty-two patients with presence of one of three NIRFs (SAECG ≥ 2 positive criteria for late potentials, ventricular premature beats ≥ 240/24 hours, and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia [VT] episode ≥ 1/24 hours) were further investigated with PVS. Patients were classified as either low risk (Group 1, n = 16, NIRFs-), moderate risk (Group 2, n = 18, NIRFs+/PVS-), and high risk (Group 3, n = 14, NIRFs+/PVS+). All in Group 3 received an ICD.
resultsAfter 41 ± 18 months, 9 of 48 patients, experienced the major arrhythmic event (MAE) endpoint (clinical VT/fibrillation = 3, appropriate ICD activation = 6). The endpoint occurred more frequently in Group 3 (7/14, 50%) than in Groups 1 and 2 (2/34, 5.8%). Logistic regression model adjusted for PVS, age, and LVEF revealed that PVS was an independent MAE predictor (OR: 21.152, 95% CI: 2.618-170.887,
conclusionsIn hospitalized HFmrEF post-MI and DCM patients, a NIRFs guiding to PVS two-step approach efficiently detected the subgroup at increased risk for MAE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.