Predicting outcome after cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator implantation: the cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator Futility score

B. Maille, A. Bodin, A. Bisson, J. Herbert, B. Pierre, N. Clementy, Victor Klein, F. Franceschi, J. Deharo, L. Fauchier
{"title":"Predicting outcome after cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator implantation: the cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator Futility score","authors":"B. Maille, A. Bodin, A. Bisson, J. Herbert, B. Pierre, N. Clementy, Victor Klein, F. Franceschi, J. Deharo, L. Fauchier","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Risk-benefit for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) defibrillator (CRT-D) over CRT pacemaker remains a matter of debate. We aimed to identify patients with a poor outcome within 1 year of CRT-D implantation, and to develop a CRT-D Futility score. Methods Based on an administrative hospital-discharge database, all consecutive patients treated with prophylactic CRT-D implantation in France (2010–2019) were included. A prediction model was derived and validated for 1-year all-cause death after CRT-D implantation (considered as futility) by using split-sample validation. Results Among 23 029 patients (mean age 68±10 years; 4873 (21.2%) women), 7016 deaths were recorded (yearly incidence rate 7.2%), of which 1604 (22.8%) occurred within 1 year of CRT-D implantation. In the derivation cohort (n=11 514), the final logistic regression model included—as main predictors of futility—older age, diabetes, mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, history of hospitalisation with heart failure, history of pulmonary oedema, atrial fibrillation, renal disease, liver disease, undernutrition and anaemia. Area under the curve for the CRT-D Futility score was 0.716 (95% CI: 0.698 to 0.734) in the derivation cohort and 0.692 (0.673 to 0.710) in the validation cohort. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test had a p-value of 0.57 suggesting accurate calibration. The CRT-D Futility score outperformed the Goldenberg and EAARN scores for identifying futility. Based on the CRT-D Futility score, 15.9% of these patients were categorised at high risk (predicted futility of 16.6%). Conclusions The CRT-D Futility score, established from a large nationwide cohort of patients treated with CRT-D, may be a relevant tool for optimising healthcare decision-making.","PeriodicalId":9311,"journal":{"name":"British Heart Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":"1186 - 1193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background Risk-benefit for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) defibrillator (CRT-D) over CRT pacemaker remains a matter of debate. We aimed to identify patients with a poor outcome within 1 year of CRT-D implantation, and to develop a CRT-D Futility score. Methods Based on an administrative hospital-discharge database, all consecutive patients treated with prophylactic CRT-D implantation in France (2010–2019) were included. A prediction model was derived and validated for 1-year all-cause death after CRT-D implantation (considered as futility) by using split-sample validation. Results Among 23 029 patients (mean age 68±10 years; 4873 (21.2%) women), 7016 deaths were recorded (yearly incidence rate 7.2%), of which 1604 (22.8%) occurred within 1 year of CRT-D implantation. In the derivation cohort (n=11 514), the final logistic regression model included—as main predictors of futility—older age, diabetes, mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, history of hospitalisation with heart failure, history of pulmonary oedema, atrial fibrillation, renal disease, liver disease, undernutrition and anaemia. Area under the curve for the CRT-D Futility score was 0.716 (95% CI: 0.698 to 0.734) in the derivation cohort and 0.692 (0.673 to 0.710) in the validation cohort. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test had a p-value of 0.57 suggesting accurate calibration. The CRT-D Futility score outperformed the Goldenberg and EAARN scores for identifying futility. Based on the CRT-D Futility score, 15.9% of these patients were categorised at high risk (predicted futility of 16.6%). Conclusions The CRT-D Futility score, established from a large nationwide cohort of patients treated with CRT-D, may be a relevant tool for optimising healthcare decision-making.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏再同步治疗除颤器植入后预测结果:心脏再同步疗法除颤器Futility评分
背景心脏再同步治疗(CRT)除颤器(CRT-D)相对于CRT起搏器的风险效益仍然存在争议。我们的目标是在1 CRT-D植入的年份,并制定CRT-D功能评分。方法基于行政出院数据库,纳入法国(2010-2019年)所有接受预防性CRT-D植入治疗的连续患者。通过分样本验证,推导并验证了CRT-D植入后1年全因死亡的预测模型(被认为是徒劳的)。结果23 029名患者(平均年龄68±10岁;4873名(21.2%)女性),记录了7016例死亡(年发病率7.2%),其中1604例(22.8%)发生在 CRT-D植入年份。在衍生队列中(n=11 514),最终的逻辑回归模型包括——作为无效的主要预测因素——老年、糖尿病、二尖瓣反流、主动脉狭窄、心力衰竭住院史、肺水肿史、心房颤动史、肾病、肝病、营养不良和贫血。CRT-D无效性评分的曲线下面积在推导队列中为0.716(95%置信区间:0.698至0.734),在验证队列中为0.692(0.673至0.710)。Hosmer-Lemeshow检验的p值为0.57,表明校准准确。CRT-D无效性得分在识别无效性方面优于Goldenberg和EAARN得分。根据CRT-D无效性评分,15.9%的患者被归类为高危患者(预测无效性为16.6%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A retrospective review of empiric acyclovir prescribing practices for suspected viral central nervous system infections: A single-centre study. Cortical Morphology in Cannabis Use Disorder: Implications for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment. Socioeconomic status and entrepreneurial networking responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Cardiac microstructural alterations measured by echocardiography identify sex-specific risk for heart failure. Aspirin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1