Key result
Increased PRD predicts ~37% greater mortality risk, including sudden and non-sudden cardiac death.
Why the study?
The value of Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD), an electrocardiographic marker of sympathetic activity, to predict sudden and non-sudden cardiac death and to improve identification of patients who benefit from ICD implantation required testing.
Does Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD) predict sudden and non-sudden cardiac death in post-infarction patients with LVEF ≤30%?
RCT (n=856)
randomized
Does Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD) predict sudden and non-sudden cardiac death in post-infarction patients with LVEF ≤30%?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In post-infarction patients with LVEF ≤30%, increased PRD predicts both sudden and non-sudden cardiac death, and may help identify patients who do not benefit from ICD implantation.
AIMS: To test the value of Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD), a recently validated electrocardiographic marker of sympathetic activity, as a novel approach to predict sudden cardiac death (SCD) and non-sudden cardiac death (N-SCD) and to improve identification of patients that profit from ICD-implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 856 post-infarction patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤30% of the MADIT-II trial in sinus rhythm. Of these, 507 and 348 patients were randomized to ICD or conventional treatment. PRD was assessed from multipolar 10-min baseline ECGs. Primary and secondary endpoints were total mortality, SCD and N-SCD. Multivariable analyses included treatment group, QRS-duration, New York Heart Association classification, blood-urea nitrogen, diabetes mellitus, beta-blocker therapy and LVEF. During follow-up of 20.4 months, 119 patients died (53 SCD and 36 N-SCD). On multivariable analyses, increased PRD was a significant predictor of mortality (standardized coefficient 1.37[1.19-1.59]; P < 0.001) and SCD (1.40 [1.13-1.75]; P = 0.003) but also predicted N-SCD (1.41[1.10-1.81]; P = 0.006). While increased PRD predicted SCD in conventionally treated patients (1.61[1.23-2.11]; P < 0.001), it was predictive of N-SCD (1.63[1.28-2.09]; P < 0.001) and adequate ICD-therapies (1.20[1.03-1.39]; P = 0.017) in ICD-treated patients. ICD-treatment substantially reduced mortality in the lowest three PRD-quartiles by 53% (P = 0.001). However, there was no effect in the highest PRD-quartile (mortality increase by 29%; P = 0.412; P < 0.001 for difference) as the reduction of SCD was compensated by an increase of N-SCD. CONCLUSION: In post-infarction patients with impaired LVEF, PRD is a significant predictor of SCD and N-SCD. Assessment of PRD is a promising tool to identify post-MI patients with reduced LVEF who might benefit from intensified treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rizas et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in post-infarction with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (n=856). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. Conventional treatment was evaluated on total mortality (standardized coefficient 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.59, p=< 0.001). Increased Periodic Repolarization Dynamics (PRD) significantly predicted mortality (standardized coefficient 1.37; 95% CI 1.19-1.59; P<0.001), sudden cardiac death, and non-sudden cardiac death.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: