Association of fibrosis with mortality and sudden cardiac death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.
TL;DR: Risk stratification of patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is primarily based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and superior prognostic factors may improve patient selection for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and other management decisions.
Abstract: Importance Risk stratification of patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is primarily based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Superior prognostic factors may improve patient selection for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and other management decisions. Objective To determine whether myocardial fibrosis (detected by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance [LGE-CMR] imaging) is an independent and incremental predictor of mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in dilated cardiomyopathy. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective, longitudinal study of 472 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy referred to a UK center for CMR imaging between November 2000 and December 2008 after presence and extent of midwall replacement fibrosis were determined. Patients were followed up through December 2011. Main Outcome Measures Primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included cardiovascular mortality or cardiac transplantation; an arrhythmic composite of SCD or aborted SCD (appropriate ICD shock, nonfatal ventricular fibrillation, or sustained ventricular tachycardia); and a composite of HF death, HF hospitalization, or cardiac transplantation. Results Among the 142 patients with midwall fibrosis, there were 38 deaths (26.8%) vs 35 deaths (10.6%) among the 330 patients without fibrosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96 [95% CI, 1.87-4.69]; absolute risk difference, 16.2% [95% CI, 8.2%-24.2%]; P Conclusions and Relevance Assessment of midwall fibrosis with LGE-CMR imaging provided independent prognostic information beyond LVEF in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. The role of LGE-CMR in the risk stratification of dilated cardiomyopathy requires further investigation.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Piotr Ponikowski* (Chairperson) (Poland), Adriaan A. Voors* (Co-Chair person) (The Netherlands), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Héctor Bueno (Spain), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Andrew J. S. Coats (UK)
13,400 citations
3,645 citations
TL;DR: This document describes the development and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme, a non-volatile substance that acts as a “spatially aggregating substance” to reduce the chances of heart attack in women.
Abstract: 2-D
: two-dimensional
3-D
: three-dimensional
5-FU
: 5-fluorouracil
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ARB
: angiotensin II receptor blocker
ASE
: American Society of Echocardiography
BNP
: B-type natriuretic peptide
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft
CAD
: coronary artery
1,875 citations
Cites background from "Association of fibrosis with mortal..."
...Late gadolinium imaging may be useful to detect scarring or fibrosis, which may have prognostic implications in the context of impaired LV function.(108,109) Additionally, CMR is an excellent test for the comprehensive evaluation of cardiac masses and infiltrative conditions....
[...]
TL;DR: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement and ongoing myocardial inflammation in patients with recent coronavirus disease 2019, which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.
Abstract: Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Case reports of hospitalized patients suggest that COVID-19 prominently affects the cardiovascular system, but the overall impact remains unknown. Objective To evaluate the presence of myocardial injury in unselected patients recently recovered from COVID-19 illness. Design, Setting, and Participants In this prospective observational cohort study, 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 illness were identified from the University Hospital Frankfurt COVID-19 Registry between April and June 2020. Exposure Recent recovery from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, as determined by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction on swab test of the upper respiratory tract. Main Outcomes and Measures Demographic characteristics, cardiac blood markers, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging were obtained. Comparisons were made with age-matched and sex-matched control groups of healthy volunteers (n = 50) and risk factor–matched patients (n = 57). Results Of the 100 included patients, 53 (53%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 49 (14) years. The median (IQR) time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and CMR was 71 (64-92) days. Of the 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19, 67 (67%) recovered at home, while 33 (33%) required hospitalization. At the time of CMR, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) was detectable (greater than 3 pg/mL) in 71 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 (71%) and significantly elevated (greater than 13.9 pg/mL) in 5 patients (5%). Compared with healthy controls and risk factor–matched controls, patients recently recovered from COVID-19 had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricle volumes, and raised native T1 and T2. A total of 78 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 (78%) had abnormal CMR findings, including raised myocardial native T1 (n = 73), raised myocardial native T2 (n = 60), myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (n = 32), or pericardial enhancement (n = 22). There was a small but significant difference between patients who recovered at home vs in the hospital for native T1 mapping (median [IQR], 1119 [1092-1150] ms vs 1141 [1121-1175] ms;P = .008) and hsTnT (4.2 [3.0-5.9] pg/dL vs 6.3 [3.4-7.9] pg/dL;P = .002) but not for native T2 mapping. None of these measures were correlated with time from COVID-19 diagnosis (native T1:r = 0.07;P = .47; native T2:r = 0.14;P = .15; hsTnT:r = −0.07;P = .50). High-sensitivity troponin T was significantly correlated with native T1 mapping (r = 0.33;P Conclusions and Relevance In this study of a cohort of German patients recently recovered from COVID-19 infection, CMR revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and time from the original diagnosis. These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.
1,576 citations
TL;DR: No abstract available Keywords: European Society of Cardiology; arrhythmias; cancer therapy; cardio-oncology; cardiotoxicity; chemotherapy; early detection; ischaemia; myocardial dysfunction; surveillance.
Abstract: No abstract available
Keywords: European Society of Cardiology; arrhythmias; cancer therapy; cardio-oncology; cardiotoxicity; chemotherapy; early detection; ischaemia; myocardial dysfunction; surveillance.
1,421 citations
Cites background from "Association of fibrosis with mortal..."
...Late gadolinium imaging may be useful to detect scarring or fibrosis, which may have prognostic implications in the context of impaired LV function.(108,109) Additionally, CMR is an excellent test for the comprehensive evaluation of cardiac masses and infiltrative conditions....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, Anderson et al. proposed a new FAHA Chair, Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect, Alice K. Jacobs et al., this article and Biykem Bozkurt.
11,386 citations
TL;DR: In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.
Abstract: background Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. methods We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shockonly, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. results The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. conclusions In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.
5,903 citations
TL;DR: Two new measures, one based on integrated sensitivity and specificity and the other on reclassification tables, are introduced that offer incremental information over the AUC and are proposed to be considered in addition to the A UC when assessing the performance of newer biomarkers.
Abstract: Identification of key factors associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and quantification of this risk using multivariable prediction algorithms are among the major advances made in preventive cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology in the 20th century. The ongoing discovery of new risk markers by scientists presents opportunities and challenges for statisticians and clinicians to evaluate these biomarkers and to develop new risk formulations that incorporate them. One of the key questions is how best to assess and quantify the improvement in risk prediction offered by these new models. Demonstration of a statistically significant association of a new biomarker with cardiovascular risk is not enough. Some researchers have advanced that the improvement in the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) should be the main criterion, whereas others argue that better measures of performance of prediction models are needed. In this paper, we address this question by introducing two new measures, one based on integrated sensitivity and specificity and the other on reclassification tables. These new measures offer incremental information over the AUC. We discuss the properties of these new measures and contrast them with the AUC. We also develop simple asymptotic tests of significance. We illustrate the use of these measures with an example from the Framingham Heart Study. We propose that scientists consider these types of measures in addition to the AUC when assessing the performance of newer biomarkers.
5,651 citations
"Association of fibrosis with mortal..." refers methods in this paper
...Reclassification of patient risk was determined using net reclassification improvement for all-cause mortality and the arrhythmic composite end point.(25) For each patient, the predicted overall risk of an adverse event was determined on the basis of a model using LVEF alone, and the relative improvement in patient reclassification associated with midwall fibrosis status (presence or absence) was then assessed....
[...]
14 Apr 2005
TL;DR: Cardiac resynchronization has been shown to reduce symptoms and improve left ventricular function in patients with heart failure due to systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony.
Abstract: background Cardiac resynchronization reduces symptoms and improves left ventricular function in many patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony We evaluated its effects on morbidity and mortality methods Patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony who were receiving standard pharmacologic therapy were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy alone or with cardiac resynchronization The primary end point was the time to death from any cause or an unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event The principal secondary end point was death from any cause results A total of 813 patients were enrolled and followed for a mean of 294 months The primary end point was reached by 159 patients in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 224 patients in the medical-therapy group (39 percent vs 55 percent; hazard ratio, 063; 95 percent confidence interval, 051 to 077; P<0001) There were 82 deaths in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 120 in the medical-therapy group (20 percent vs 30 percent; hazard ratio 064; 95 percent confidence interval, 048 to 085; P<0002) As compared with medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization reduced the interventricular mechanical delay, the end-systolic volume index, and the area of the mitral regurgitant jet; increased the left ventricular ejection fraction; and improved symptoms and the quality of life (P<001 for all comparisons) conclusions In patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony, cardiac resynchronization improves symptoms and the quality of life and reduces complications and the risk of death These benefits are in addition to those afforded by standard pharmacologic therapy The implantation of a cardiac-resynchronization device should routinely be considered in such patients
5,493 citations
TL;DR: Theodore G. Feldman, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, Chair as mentioned in this paper, Chair, Chair of FAHA 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2019
Abstract: Mariell Jessup, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair [*][1]
William T. Abraham, MD, FACC, FAHA[†][2]
Donald E. Casey, MD, MPH, MBA[‡][3]
Arthur M. Feldman, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA[§][4]
Gary S. Francis, MD, FACC, FAHA[§][4]
Theodore G. Ganiats, MD[∥][5]
Marvin A. Konstam, MD, FACC[¶][6]
Donna M.
3,542 citations