Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy

Rodríguez‐Mañero, Moisés; Barrio-López, María Teresa; Assi, Emad Abu; Expósito-García, Víctor; Bertomeu-González, Vicente; Sánchez-Gómez, Juan Miguel; González-Torres, Luis; García‐Bolao, Ignacio; Gaztañaga, Larraitz; Cabanas‐Grandío, Pilar; Iglesias-Bravo, José Antonio; Arce-León, Álvaro; Huerta, Ana Andrés La; Fernández-Armenta, Juan; Peinado, Rafaél; Arias, Miguel Á.; Dı́az-Infante, Ernesto

doi:10.1016/j.rec.2015.05.016

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, 20 papers qualified for our quantitative synthesis [ 7 – 9 , 12 , 13 , 19 – 33 ], two of them [ 26 , 28 ] from the same study population. For the meta-analysis on mortality, the results reported by Yung et al were considered since their report focusses on the primary prevention subgroup [ 28 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSome but not all prior studies have shown that women receiving a primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have a lower risk of death and appropriate shocks than men.PurposeTo evaluate the effect of gender on the risk of appropriate shock, all-cause mortality and inappropriate shock in contemporary studies of patients receiving a primary prophylactic ICD.Data SourcePubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016.Study SelectionStudies providing at least 1 gender-specific risk estimate for the outcomes of interest.Data ExtractionAbstracts were screened independently for potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Thereby each abstract was reviewed by at least two authors.Data SynthesisOut of 680 abstracts retained by our search strategy, 20 studies including 46’657 patients had gender-specific information on at least one of the relevant endpoints. Mean age across the individual studies varied between 58 and 69 years. The proportion of women enrolled ranged from 10% to 30%. Across 6 available studies, women had a significantly lower risk of first appropriate shock compared with men (pooled multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.62 (95% CI [0.44; 0.88]). Across 14 studies reporting multivariable adjusted gender-specific hazard ratio estimates for all-cause mortality, women had a lower risk of death than men (pooled hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI [0.66; 0.86]). There was no statistically significant difference for the incidence of first inappropriate shocks (3 studies, pooled hazard ratio 0.99 (95% CI [0.56; 1.73]).LimitationsIndividual patient data were not available for most studies.ConclusionIn this large contemporary meta-analysis, women had a significantly lower risk of appropriate shocks and death than men, but a similar risk of inappropriate shocks. These data may help to select patients who benefit from primary prophylactic ICD implantation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…865 Small observational studies have shown that patients with residual LV dysfunction after valvular surgery who undergo ICD implantation have appropriate therapy and mortality rates similar to patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy. [866][867][868] ICD implantation in these patients should therefore follow DCM/HNDCM recommendations.…”

Section: Valvular Heart Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…890,891 Sustained VA in a patient with CHD In patients with valvular heart disease and persistent LV dysfunction after surgical correction, (if possible) it is recommended that ICD implantation for primary prevention follows DCM/HNDCM recommendations. 868…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death

Zeppenfeld¹,

Tfelt-Hansen²,

Riva³

et al. 2022

European Heart Journal

1,111

625

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/Guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary data that includes background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis of the guidelines.Click here to access the corresponding ESC CardioMed chapters.

show abstract

“…However, the models used and the factors considered differed partially (in the latter two cases the selection of patients for the analysis differed as well), what prevented us from choosing one from each pair over the other for our analysis. Furthermore, there appeared to be a large overlap in patient populations in Fernandez-Cisnal et al[ 28 ] and Rodriguez-Manero et al[ 29 ], and a small part of patients analysed by Hage et al[ 30 ], Hager et al[ 31 ], Levine et al[ 32 ], Masoudi et al[ 33 ], Raja et al[ 34 ] might be a part of the large populations taken from the American NCDR ICD registry as analysed by Bilchick et al[ 35 ] and Hess et al[ 36 ]. A total of 36 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increased risk of death was also found[ 43 ] for patients with chronic renal failure (HR 1.57, 95% CI: [1.09, 2.26]) and for patients with renal failure (unadjusted HR 2.4, 95% CI: [1, 6.1])[ 49 ]. Rodriguez-Mañero et al[ 29 ] found higher risk of death to be associated with increased creatinine levels (HR per mg/dl 1.66, 95% CI [1.36, 2.02]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of mortality and ICD shock therapy in primary prophylactic ICD patients—A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients. PurposeTo evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all-cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies. Data sourcePubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. Study selectionStudies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported. Data extractionAll abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail. Data synthesisOur search strategy retrieved 608 abstracts. After exclusion of unsuitable studies, 36 papers with a total patient number of 47282 were included in our analysis. All-cause mortality was significantly associated with increasing age (HR 1.41, CI 1.29-1.53), left ventricular function (LVEF; HR 1.21, CI 1.14-1.29), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; HR 1.37, CI 1.14-1.66) and co-morbidities such as impaired renal function (HR 2.30, CI 1.97-2.69). Although, younger age (HR 0.96 LimitationsIndividual patient data were not available for most studies. ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of contemporary clinical studies, all-cause mortality is predicted by a variety of clinical characteristics including LVEF. On the other hand, the risk of appropriate shocks might be associated with impaired LVEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective studies are required to verify risk factors for appropriate shocks other than LVEF to help select appropriate patients for primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.

show abstract

Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death

Predictors of mortality and ICD shock therapy in primary prophylactic ICD patients—A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About