Key result
A lower prognostic index (<220) derived from age and ambulatory blood pressure was associated with a higher risk of cardiac events compared to a higher index (61% vs 12%; HR 4.8; 95% CI 1.8-12.3).
Why the study?
Does a prognostic index based on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and age predict cardiac death and heart failure in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and a defibrillator?
Cohort (n=105)
Does a prognostic index based on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and age predict cardiac death and heart failure in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and a defibrillator?
Hazard Ratio: 4.8 (95% CI 1.8–12.3)
Absolute Event Rate: 61% vs 12%
p-value: p=0.0001
A simple prognostic index combining age and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure can stratify the risk of cardiac death and heart failure in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and a defibrillator.
May refine risk stratification in ischemic cardiomyopathy with defibrillators; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: We assessed the role of left ventricular ejection fraction and of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to predict cardiac death and heart failure in patients with defibrillator fulfilling MADIT II criteria. ABPM variables assessed included: mean 24 hours diastolic and systolic blood pressure, mean 24 hours heart rate, and pulse pressure. METHODS: We studied 105 consecutive patients (age 67 +/- 11), all with a defibrillator and ejection fraction <or= 30%). RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, there were 29 events (25%), three cardiac deaths, and 26 hospitalizations for heart failure. Age, creatinine, mean 24 hours diastolic blood pressure, and mean 24 hours systolic blood pressure (but not ejection fraction) were associated with events. A prognostic index (PI) was built by age and ABPM variables, according to the formula (120--age) + (mean 24 hours diastolic blood pressure + mean 24 hours systolic blood pressure). Receiver operating characteristic curves showed the best cutoff for PI = 220 (sensitivity 81%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 56%, negative predictive value 88%). Cox regression analysis confirmed the significant association between lower PI (< 220) and clinical events (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-12.3, P = 0.0001 for PI). Overall, 12% of patients with high PI values (>or= 220 n = 71) had clinical events at 12-month follow-up, compared with 61% of patients with low PI (< 220 n = 34) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The PI built by mean 24 hours diastolic and systolic blood pressure and age could be a simple method to stratify risk of cardiac death and acute heart failure in MADIT II patients, in whom ejection fraction, uniformly depressed, is not predictive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antonini et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Ischemic cardiomyopathy following defibrillator implantation (n=105). Lower prognostic index (< 220) vs. High prognostic index (≥ 220) was evaluated on Clinical events (cardiac death and hospitalizations for heart failure) (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-12.3, p=0.0001). A lower prognostic index (<220) derived from age and ambulatory blood pressure was associated with a higher risk of cardiac events compared to a higher index (61% vs 12%; HR 4.8; 95% CI 1.8-12.3).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: