The MADIT-ICD benefit score helps to select implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the MADIT-ICD benefit score can predict who benefits most from the addition of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in real-world patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to compare this with selection according to a multidisciplinary expert centre approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive HFrEF patients who received a CRT for a guideline indication at a tertiary care hospital (Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium) between October 2008 and September 2016, were retrospectively evaluated. The MADIT-ICD benefit groups (low, intermediate, and high) were compared with the current multidisciplinary expert centre approach. Endpoints were (i) sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and (ii) non-arrhythmic mortality. Of the 475 included patients, 165 (34.7%) were in the lowest, 220 (46.3%) in the intermediate, and 90 (19.0%) in the highest benefit group. After a median follow-up of 34 months, VT/VF occurred in 3 (1.8%) patients in the lowest, 9 (4.1%) in the intermediate, and 13 (14.4%) in the highest benefit group (P < 0.001). Vice versa, non-arrhythmic death occurred in 32 (19.4%) in the lowest, 32 (14.6%) in the intermediate, and 3 (3.3%) in the highest benefit group (P = 0.002). The predictive power for ICD benefit was comparable between expert multidisciplinary judgement and the MADIT-ICD benefit score: Uno's C-statistic 0.69 vs. 0.69 (P = 0.936) for VT/VF and 0.62 vs. 0.60 (P = 0.790) for non-arrhythmic mortality. CONCLUSION: The MADIT-ICD benefit score can identify who benefits most from CRT-D and is comparable with multidisciplinary judgement in a CRT expert centre.

Predicted benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: the MADIT-ICD benefit score.

AIMS: The benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not uniform due to differences in the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) and non-arrhythmic mortality. We aimed to develop an ICD benefit prediction score that integrates the competing risks. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised all 4531 patients enrolled in the MADIT trials. Best-subsets Fine and Gray regression analysis was used to develop prognostic models for VT (≥200 b.p.m.)/VF vs. non-arrhythmic mortality (defined as death without prior sustained VT/VF). Eight predictors of VT/VF (male, age < 75 years, prior non-sustained VT, heart rate > 75 b.p.m., systolic blood pressure < 140 mmHg, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, myocardial infarction, and atrialarrhythmia) and 7 predictors of non-arrhythmic mortality (age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, body mass index < 23 kg/m2, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association ≥II, ICD vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, and atrial arrhythmia) were identified. The two scores were combined to create three MADIT-ICD benefit groups. In the highest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was three-fold higher than the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (20% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). In the intermediate benefit group, the difference in the corresponding predicted risks was attenuated (15% vs. 9%, P < 0.01). In the lowest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was similar to the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (11% vs. 12%, P = 0.41). A personalized ICD benefit score was developed based on the distribution of the two competing risks scores in the study population (https://is.gd/madit). Internal and external validation confirmed model stability. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the novel MADIT-ICD benefit score that predicts the likelihood of prophylactic ICD benefit through personalized assessment of the risk of VT/VF weighed against the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality.

Benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Japanese patients based on modified MADIT-ICD benefit score.

AIMS: The MADIT-ICD benefit score is used to stratify the risk of life-threatening arrhythmia and non-arrhythmic mortality. We sought to develop an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) benefit-prediction score for Japanese patients with ICDs. METHODS: Patients who underwent ICD implantation as primary prophylaxis were retrospectively enrolled. Based on their MADIT-ICD benefit scores, we developed a modified MADIT-ICD benefit score adapted to the Japanese population. The primary endpoints were appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause death without appropriate ICD therapy (non-arrhythmic death). We used the Fine and Gray multivariate model and Cox proportional hazard regression to identify factors for adjusting the MADIT-ICD benefit-risk score specifically for the Japanese population. The scoring points for the original MADIT-ICD benefit score were adjusted to optimal points based on the multivariate analysis results in the population. RESULTS: The study enrolled 167 patients [age, 61.9 ± 12.3 years; male individuals, 138 (82.6%); cardiac resynchronization therapy, 73 (43.7%); ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 53 (31.7%)]. Fourteen patients received anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy, and 23 received shock therapy as the initial appropriate ICD therapy. Non-arrhythmic deaths occurred in 37 patients. The original MADIT-ICD benefit score could not stratify non-arrhythmic mortality in the Japanese population. The patients were reclassified into three groups according to the modified MADIT-ICD benefit score. The modified MADIT-ICD benefit score could effectively stratify the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy and non-arrhythmic mortality. In the highest-benefit group, the 10 year cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapy and non-arrhythmic mortality were 56.8% and 12.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). In the intermediate-benefit group, these rates were 20.2% and 40.2% (P = 0.01). In the lowest-benefit group, the incidence of non-arrhythmic deaths was 68.1%, and no patient received appropriate ICD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The modified MADIT-ICD benefit score may be useful for stratifying ICD candidates in the Japanese population.

A novel method to predict the proportional risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure: Derivation of the Seattle Proportional Risk Model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure are at increased risk of both sudden death and pump failure death. Strategies to better identify those who have greatest net benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation could reduce morbidity and maximize cost-effectiveness of ICDs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify baseline variables in patients with cardiomyopathy that are independently associated with a disproportionate fraction of mortality risk attributable to sudden death vs nonsudden death. METHODS: We used data from 9885 patients with heart failure without ICDs, of whom 2552 died during an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Using commonly available baseline clinical and demographic variables, we developed a multivariate regression model to identify variables associated with a disproportionate risk of sudden death. RESULTS: We confirmed that lower ejection fraction and better functional class were associated with a greater proportion of mortality due to sudden death. Younger age, male sex, and higher body mass index were independently associated with a greater proportional risk of sudden death, while diabetes mellitus, hyper/hypotension, higher creatinine level, and hyponatremia were associated with a disproportionately lower risk of sudden death. The use of several heart failure medications, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, or NT-pro brain natriuretic peptide concentrations were not associated with a disproportionate risk of sudden death. CONCLUSION: Several easily obtained baseline demographic and clinical variables, beyond ejection fraction and New York Heart Association functional class, are independently associated with a disproportionately increased risk of sudden death. Further investigation is needed to assess whether this novel predictive method can be used to target the use of lifesaving therapies to populations who will derive greatest mortality benefit .