Article

Assessment of Myocardial Scarring Improves Risk Stratification in Patients Evaluated for Cardiac Defibrillator Implantation

Duke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 16.5). 07/2012; 60(5):408-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.070
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

We tested whether an assessment of myocardial scarring by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would improve risk stratification in patients evaluated for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.
Current sudden cardiac death risk stratification emphasizes left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); however, most patients suffering sudden cardiac death have a preserved LVEF, and many with poor LVEF do not benefit from ICD prophylaxis.
One hundred thirty-seven patients undergoing evaluation for possible ICD placement were prospectively enrolled and underwent cardiac MRI assessment of LVEF and scar. The pre-specified primary endpoint was death or appropriate ICD discharge for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia.
During a median follow-up of 24 months the primary endpoint occurred in 39 patients. Whereas the rate of adverse events steadily increased with decreasing LVEF, a sharp step-up was observed for scar size >5% of left ventricular mass (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0 to 13.3). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, including LVEF and electrophysiological-study results, scar size (as a continuous variable or dichotomized at 5%) was an independent predictor of adverse outcome. Among patients with LVEF >30%, those with significant scarring (>5%) had higher risk than those with minimal or no (≤5%) scarring (HR: 6.3; 95% CI: 1.4 to 28.0). Those with LVEF >30% and significant scarring had risk similar to patients with LVEF ≤30% (p = 0.56). Among patients with LVEF ≤30%, those with significant scarring again had higher risk than those with minimal or no scarring (HR: 3.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 13.1). Those with LVEF ≤30% and minimal scarring had risk similar to patients with LVEF >30% (p = 0.71).
Myocardial scarring detected by cardiac MRI is an independent predictor of adverse outcome in patients being considered for ICD placement. In patients with LVEF >30%, significant scarring (>5% LV) identifies a high-risk cohort similar in risk to those with LVEF ≤30%. Conversely, in patients with LVEF ≤30%, minimal or no scarring identifies a low-risk cohort similar to those with LVEF >30%.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Michele Parker, Dec 29, 2014
  • Source
    • "In this prospective study the extent of total MI and core MI did not achieve a statistical significance in the prediction of appropriate ICD therapy even using MCLE-based algorithms, probably due to the small sample size. However, in larger sample studies the extent of MI is a validated predictor for appropriate ICD shocks in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy [24]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Myocardial infarct heterogeneity indices including peri-infarct gray zone are predictors for spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias events after ICD implantation in patients with ischemic heart disease. In this study we hypothesize that the extent of peri-infarct gray zone and papillary muscle infarct scores determined by a new multi-contrast late enhancement (MCLE) method may predict appropriate ICD therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease. The cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocol included LV functional parameter assessment and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) CMR using the conventional method and MCLE post-contrast. The proportion of peri-infarct gray zone, core infarct, total infarct relative to LV myocardium mass, papillary muscle infarct scores, and LV functional parameters were statistically compared between groups with and without appropriate ICD therapy during follow-up. Twenty-five patients with prior myocardial infarct for planned ICD implantation (age 64+/-10 yrs, 88% men, average LVEF 26.2+/-10.4%) were enrolled. All patients completed the CMR protocol and 6--46 months follow-up at the ICD clinic. Twelve patients had at least one appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmias at follow-up. Only the proportion of gray zone measured with MCLE and papillary muscle infarct scores demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between patients with and without appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmias; other CMR derived parameters such as LVEF, core infarct and total infarct did not show a statistically significant difference between these two groups. Peri-infarct gray zone measurement using MCLE, compared to using conventional LGE-CMR, might be more sensitive in predicting appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmia events. Papillary muscle infarct scores might have a specific role for predicting appropriate ICD therapy although the exact mechanism needs further investigation.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2013 · Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Jul 2012 · Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The extent of left ventricular (LV) scar, characterized by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MRI (LGE-CMR), has been shown to predict the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients. However, the specificity of LGE-CMR for sudden cardiac death (SCD) versus non-SCD is unclear. The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to evaluate this relationship in a cohort of ICD recipients. Methods and results: We included consecutive patients who had undergone LGE-CMR before ICD implantation over a 4-year period (2006-2009). Scar (defined as myocardium with a signal intensity ≥50% of the maximum in scar tissue) was characterized in terms of percent scar and number of transmural LV scar segments in a 17-segment model. The endpoints were appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause mortality. Sixty-four patients (average age 66 ± 11 years, 51 male, median LVEF 30%) were included. During 42 ± 13 months follow-up, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 28 patients (44%), and 14 patients (22%) died. Number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.005) and percentage LV scar (P = 0.03) were both significantly associated with appropriate ICD therapy. However, neither number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.32) or percent LV scar (P = 0.59) was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusion: In this observational study, in medium-term follow-up, the extent of LV scar characterized by LGE-CMR was strongly associated with the occurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias but not all-cause mortality. We hypothesize that scar quantification by LGE-CMR may be more specific for SCD than non-SCD, and may prove a valuable tool for the selection of patients for ICD therapy.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2012 · Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Show more

Questions & Answers about this publication

  • Nathan Mewton asked a question in Cardiac MRI:
    When are we going to use cardiac delayed enhancement in the risk stratification of ICD implantation candidates?
    LVEF is almost the only parameter used to decide upon ICD implantation in patients for primary prevention, all this based upon MADIT and MADIT-affiliated trials. This strategy has led us to over-implant ICD devices in patients with significant consequences on health economics and patient morbidity.
    Delayed enhancement, one of the most robust parameters brought to the table by MRI, has now heavy evidence backing up its predictive value on cardiac mortality and ventricular arrhythmias in various types of cardiomyopathies.
    We need to re-do the MADIT trials implementing delayed enhancement in the therapeutic management decision.
    • Source
      [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
      ABSTRACT: We tested whether an assessment of myocardial scarring by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would improve risk stratification in patients evaluated for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Current sudden cardiac death risk stratification emphasizes left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); however, most patients suffering sudden cardiac death have a preserved LVEF, and many with poor LVEF do not benefit from ICD prophylaxis. One hundred thirty-seven patients undergoing evaluation for possible ICD placement were prospectively enrolled and underwent cardiac MRI assessment of LVEF and scar. The pre-specified primary endpoint was death or appropriate ICD discharge for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. During a median follow-up of 24 months the primary endpoint occurred in 39 patients. Whereas the rate of adverse events steadily increased with decreasing LVEF, a sharp step-up was observed for scar size >5% of left ventricular mass (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0 to 13.3). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, including LVEF and electrophysiological-study results, scar size (as a continuous variable or dichotomized at 5%) was an independent predictor of adverse outcome. Among patients with LVEF >30%, those with significant scarring (>5%) had higher risk than those with minimal or no (≤5%) scarring (HR: 6.3; 95% CI: 1.4 to 28.0). Those with LVEF >30% and significant scarring had risk similar to patients with LVEF ≤30% (p = 0.56). Among patients with LVEF ≤30%, those with significant scarring again had higher risk than those with minimal or no scarring (HR: 3.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 13.1). Those with LVEF ≤30% and minimal scarring had risk similar to patients with LVEF >30% (p = 0.71). Myocardial scarring detected by cardiac MRI is an independent predictor of adverse outcome in patients being considered for ICD placement. In patients with LVEF >30%, significant scarring (>5% LV) identifies a high-risk cohort similar in risk to those with LVEF ≤30%. Conversely, in patients with LVEF ≤30%, minimal or no scarring identifies a low-risk cohort similar to those with LVEF >30%.
      Full-text · Article · Jul 2012 · Journal of the American College of Cardiology