Key result
Baseline electromechanical window predicts ~2% higher risk of fatal ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients.
Why the study?
The additive effect of the electromechanical window on predicting fatal ventricular arrhythmias in high-risk patients had not been established.
Does the electromechanical window (EMW) predict fatal ventricular arrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
Cohort (n=245)
Does the electromechanical window (EMW) predict fatal ventricular arrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?
Effect estimate: OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.03)
p-value: p=0.004
The electromechanical window is a strong independent predictor of fatal ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ICDs, improving risk stratification beyond standard clinical variables.
EMW may refine arrhythmia risk stratification in ICD patients; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background: As an indicator of electro-mechanical coupling, electromechanical window (EMW) can be used to predict fatal ventricular arrhythmias.We investigated the additive effect of EMW on the prediction of fatal ventricular arrhythmias in high-risk patients.Methods: We included patients who had implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implanted for primary or secondary prevention.The event group was defined as those who received an appropriate ICD therapy.We acquired echocardiograms at ICD implantation and follow-up.The EMW was calculated as the difference between the interval from QRS onset to aortic valve closure and QT interval from the electrocardiogram embedded in the continuous wave doppler image.We evaluated the predictive value of EMW for predicting fatal ventricular arrhythmia.Results: Of 245 patients (67.2 12.8 years, 63.7% men), the event group was 20.0%.EMW at baseline (EMW-Baseline) and follow-up (EMW-FU) was significantly different between event and control groups.After adjustment, both EMW-Baseline (odds ratio [OR] adjust 1.02 [1.01-1.03],P = 0.004) and EMW-FU (OR adjust 1.06 [1.04-1.07],P < 0.001) remained as significant predictors for fatal arrhythmic events.Adding EMW-Baseline significantly improved the discriminating ability of the multivariable model including clinical variables (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77 [0.70-0.84] vs. AUC 0.72 [0.64-0.80],P = 0.004), while a univariable model using EMW-FU alone showed the best performance among models (AUC 0.87 [0.81-0.94],P = 0.060 against model with clinical variables; P = 0.030 against model with clinical variables and EMW-Baseline). Conclusion:The EMW could effectively predict severe ventricular arrhythmia in ICD implanted patients.This finding supports the importance of incorporating the electro-mechanical coupling index into the clinical practice for predicting future fatal arrhythmia events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rhee et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Risk of fatal ventricular arrhythmia (n=245). Electromechanical window (EMW) assessment vs. Control group (no appropriate ICD therapy) was evaluated on Fatal ventricular arrhythmia (appropriate ICD therapy) (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03, p=0.004). Baseline electromechanical window significantly predicted fatal ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P=0.004) and improved the discriminating ability of clinical models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: