Vascular and Extravascular Findings on Magnetic Resonance Angiography of the Thoracic Aorta and the Origin of the Great Vessels

Purpose: To investigate the presence of relevant vascular and incidental extravascular findings in patients undergoing magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the thoracic aorta and origin of the great vessels. Materials and Methods: In all, 165 consecutive patients (mean age 61612 years) underwent 1.5 T MRA of the thorax. Two researchers identified vascular and incidental extravascular findings. Clinically relevant vascular findings were defined. Extravascular findings were categorized as minor (Group A, without change in patient treatment), intermediate (Group B, unclear clinical relevance, requiring additional investigations), and major (Group C, causing a change in patient treatment). Results: A total of 306 relevant vascular findings were found in our cohort. A total of 397 extravascular findings were observed among the patients and were classified as Group A findings in 81.9% (325/397 findings, observed in 146 of 165 patients), as Group B findings in 15.4% (61/397 findings, observed in 52 of 165 patients), and as Group C in 2.8% of findings (11/397). The clinically relevant Group C findings were observed in 6.7% of patients (11/165), comprising eight previously unknown neoplasms (4.8% of 165), two patients with hemodynamically relevant pericardial effusion (1.2% of 165), and one patient with spondylodiscitis (0.6% of 165) detected by MRA. Conclusion: Relevant vascular and extravascular findings were found in patients referred for thoracic MRA. Most extravascular findings can be categorized by MRA as minor, while others required further diagnostics since they may be malignant or otherwise clinically relevant. (C) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with versus without diabetes with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Abstract Objective: Diabetes increases the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). The exact mechanisms leading to sudden death in diabetes are not well known. We compared the incidence of appropriate shocks and mortality in patients with versus without diabetes with a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) included in the retrospective EU-CERT-ICD registry. Research design and methods and results: A total of 3,535 patients from 12 European EU-CERT-ICD centers with a mean age of 63.7 ± 11.2 years (82% males) at the time of ICD implantation were included in the analysis. A total of 995 patients (28%) had a history of diabetes. All patients had an ICD implanted for primary SCD prevention. End points were appropriate shock and all-cause mortality. Mean follow-up time was 3.2 ± 2.3 years. Diabetes was associated with a lower risk of appropriate shocks (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.62–0.96], P = 0.02). However, patients with diabetes had significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.11–1.53], P = 0.001). Conclusions: All-cause mortality is higher in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes with primary prophylactic ICDs. Subsequently, patients with diabetes have a lower incidence of appropriate ICD shocks, indicating that the excess mortality might not be caused primarily by ventricular tachyarrhythmias. These findings suggest a limitation of the potential of prophylactic ICD therapy to improve survival in patients with diabetes with impaired left ventricular function

Gender differences in appropriate shocks and mortality among patients with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Systematic review and meta-analysis

peerReviewe

Sex differences in outcomes of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy:combined registry data from eleven European countries

Abstract Aims: Therapy with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is established for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high risk patients. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy by analysing registry data from 14 centres in 11 European countries compiled between 2002 and 2014, with emphasis on outcomes in women who have been underrepresented in all trials. Methods and results: Retrospective data of 14 local registries of primary prevention ICD implantations between 2002 and 2014 were compiled in a central database. Predefined primary outcome measures were overall mortality and first appropriate and first inappropriate shocks. A multivariable model enforcing a common hazard ratio for sex category across the centres, but allowing for centre-specific baseline hazards and centre specific effects of other covariates, was adjusted for age, the presence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy or a CRT-D, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25%. Of the 5033 patients, 957 (19%) were women. During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 16–55 months) 129 women (13%) and 807 men (20%) died (HR 0.65; 95% CI: [0.53, 0.79], P-value < 0.0001). An appropriate ICD shock occurred in 66 women (8%) and 514 men (14%; HR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47–0.79; P = 0.0002). Conclusion: Our retrospective analysis of 14 local registries in 11 European countries demonstrates that fewer women than men undergo ICD implantation for primary prevention. After multivariate adjustment, women have a significantly lower mortality and receive fewer appropriate ICD shocks

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

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all- cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: All abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our 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, CI 0.85-1.09), impaired LVEF (HR 1.26, CI 0.89-1.78) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 2.22, CI 0.83-5.93) were associated with a higher risk of appropriate shocks, none of these factors reached statistical significance. LIMITATIONS: Individual patient data were not available for most studies. CONCLUSION: In 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.peerReviewe

Rationale and design of the EU-CERT-ICD prospective study: comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

AIMS: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non-randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality; the co-primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.peerReviewe

Clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the EU-CERT-ICD controlled multicentre cohort study

Aims: The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results: We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). Conclusion: In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.peerReviewe

Rationale and design of the EU‐CERT‐ICD prospective study:comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation

Abstract Aims: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU‐CERT‐ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. Methods and results: The EU‐CERT‐ICD is a prospective investigator‐initiated non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non‐randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all‐cause mortality; the co‐primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost‐effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. Conclusions: The EU‐CERT‐ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers