Incidence of appropriate shock in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with improved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (EF) is a recently described clinical entity. There is insufficient information on the management of implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients with improved EF at generator replacement. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the incidence of appropriate shocks in 91 consecutive patients with ICDs for primary prevention of sudden death who underwent generator replacement. Improved EF was defined as both EF >35% at generator replacement and increase in EF by ≥10% since original implantation. Patients were 70 ± 11 years old, and 76% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. At generator replacement, 25 patients (27%) had improved EF (0.49 ± 0.08 vs 0.31 ± 0.07 at baseline; P < .0001). Over 6.2 ± 2.2 years of follow-up after original implantation, 9 patients (36%) with improved EF versus 19 (29%) with unchanged EF had appropriate ICD shocks (P = .51). Incidence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar between the two groups before (P = .90) and after (P = .97) generator replacement. Of the 9 improved EF patients with appropriate shock, 4 had shocks before generator replacement, 2 had shocks before and after generator replacement, and 3 patients, who never had shocks before, had their first shock after generator replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Some ICD patients whose EF improves to >35% at generator replacement remain at risk for appropriate ICD shocks.

Measurements of pulmonary vein ostial diameter and distance to first bifurcation: a comparison of different measurement methods.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between axial, multiplanar reformatted (MPR) and semi-automated software measurements of pulmonary vein ostial diameters and distance to the first bifurcation. CT examinations of the thorax were retrospectively reviewed in 150 consecutive patients. The pulmonary vein ostial diameter and distance to the first bifurcation of the four main pulmonary veins were independently measured. The three measurement methods were compared using a Bland-Altman test. There was no significant variation between pulmonary vein ostial diameter measurements for the superior pulmonary veins across the three measurement methods. There was significant variation between the semi-automated program and both the axial (p=0.001) and MPR (p<0.001) measured diameters for the right inferior pulmonary vein ostial diameter and between the MPR and semi-automated program measurements (p=0.02) for the left inferior pulmonary vein ostial diameter. There was no significant variation between the pulmonary vein distance to first bifurcation measurements for any pulmonary vein across the three measurement methods. However, from a clinical perspective, differences were negligible; therefore, the clinician may confidently use any of the three measurement methods presented.