Why the study?
The 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement proposed a risk stratification algorithm for ICD placement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy, but its performance required evaluation.
Does the 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement risk stratification algorithm accurately predict ventricular arrhythmia risk in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy?
Population
365 arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy patients
Comparison
Risk stratification by Class I, IIa, IIb, or III ICD indication per 2015 algorithm
Design
Cohort study
Follow-up
Median 4.2 years (IQR 1.7–8.4)
Authors
Loading...
May underestimate VT/VF risk in ARVD/C; leaves open need for refined, prospectively validated stratification.
Cohort (n=365)
Does the 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement risk stratification algorithm accurately predict ventricular arrhythmia risk in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy?
p-value: p=0.22
The 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement algorithm for ICD placement in ARVD/C underestimates VT/VF incidence and fails to distinguish VF/flutter risks between Class I and IIa indications, suggesting a need for refinement.
Orgeron et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (n=365). 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement Risk Stratification Algorithm vs. Algorithm classes (e.g., Class I vs Class IIa) was evaluated on Survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VT/VF) (p=0.22). The 2015 International Task Force algorithm underestimated VT/VF incidence and did not differentiate VT/VF risk between Class I and IIa primary prevention patients (P=0.22).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: