Suppr超能文献

心脏性猝死分类准确性的探索。对临床试验解读的启示。

Exploration of the precision of classifying sudden cardiac death. Implications for the interpretation of clinical trials.

作者信息

Pratt C M, Greenway P S, Schoenfeld M H, Hibben M L, Reiffel J A

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex 77030, USA.

出版信息

Circulation. 1996 Feb 1;93(3):519-24. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.93.3.519.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

As cardiovascular clinical trials improve in sophistication and therapies target specific cardiac mechanisms of death, a more objective and precise system to identify specific cause of death is needed. Ideally, sudden cardiac death would describe patients dying of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. In this context, we explored the precision of current sudden death classification and implications for clinical trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Deaths were analyzed in 834 patients who received an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Three arrhythmia experts used a standard prospective classification system to classify deaths into accepted categories: sudden cardiac, nonsudden cardiac, and noncardiac. New aspects to this study included analysis of autopsy results and ICD interrogation for arrhythmias at the time of death. All of the patients receiving the ICD previously had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Of the 109 subsequent deaths in the 834-patient database, 17 (16%) were classified as sudden cardiac. Compared with the nonsudden cardiac and noncardiac categories, sudden cardiac death was more often identified in outpatients (59% versus 10%) and witnessed less often (41% versus 86%; both P < .001). The autopsy information contradicted and changed the clinical perception of a "sudden cardiac death" in 7 cases (myocardial infarction [n = 1], pulmonary embolism [n = 2], cerebral infarction [n = 1], ruptured thoracic [n = 1], and abdominal aortic aneurysms [n = 2]). Interpretable ICD interrogation was available in 53% of the deaths (47% unavailable: buried, programmed off, or other technical reasons). When evaluated, only 7 of 17 "sudden deaths" were associated with ICD discharges near the time of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a group of patients with an ICD, deaths classified as sudden cardiac frequently were not associated with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and were often noncardiac. It is possible to create a wide range of sudden cardiac death rates (more than fourfold) using the identical clinical database despite objective, prespecified criteria. Autopsy results frequently reveal noncardiac causes of clinical events simulating sudden cardiac death. ICD interrogation revealed that ICD discharges were often related to terminal arrhythmias incidental to the primary pathophysiological process leading to death.

摘要

背景

随着心血管临床试验复杂性的提高以及治疗针对特定的心脏死亡机制,需要一个更客观、精确的系统来确定具体的死亡原因。理想情况下,心源性猝死应描述死于室性心动过速和心室颤动的患者。在此背景下,我们探讨了当前心源性猝死分类的准确性及其对临床试验的影响。

方法与结果

对834例接受植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)的患者的死亡情况进行了分析。三位心律失常专家使用标准的前瞻性分类系统将死亡分为公认的类别:心源性猝死、非心源性猝死和非心脏性死亡。本研究的新内容包括对尸检结果的分析以及死亡时心律失常的ICD问询。所有接受ICD的患者之前均有持续性室性心动过速/心室颤动或心脏骤停的记录。在834例患者的数据库中发生的109例后续死亡中,17例(16%)被分类为心源性猝死。与非心源性猝死和非心脏性死亡类别相比,心源性猝死在门诊患者中更常被确定(59%对10%),且目击情况较少(41%对86%;P均<0.001)。尸检信息在7例病例中与“心源性猝死”的临床判断相矛盾并改变了这一判断(心肌梗死[n = 1]、肺栓塞[n = 2]、脑梗死[n = 1]、胸主动脉破裂[n = 1]和腹主动脉瘤[n = 2])。53%的死亡病例可进行可解释的ICD问询(47%不可用:埋藏、程控关闭或其他技术原因)。在评估时,17例“猝死”中只有7例与死亡时附近的ICD放电有关。

结论

即使在一组植入ICD的患者中,分类为心源性猝死的死亡通常与室性心动过速或心室颤动无关,且往往为非心脏性死亡。尽管有客观、预先指定的标准,但使用相同的临床数据库可能会得出范围广泛的心源性猝死率(超过四倍)。尸检结果经常揭示模拟心源性猝死的临床事件的非心脏性原因。ICD问询显示,ICD放电通常与导致死亡的主要病理生理过程附带的终末期心律失常有关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验