Pitschner H F, Neuzner J, Himmrich E, Liebrich A, Jung J, Heisel A
Kerchoff-Clinic, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1997 Nov;1(3):211-20. doi: 10.1023/a:1009716822824.
The degree of left ventricular impairment in an acknowledged important prognostic marker of long-term outcome for patients being evaluated for implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. Just how left ventricular function impacts freedom from all-cause mortality, as well as from sudden death and cardiac death, is a subject of current major debate, and is analyzed hereunder from a large, recent multicenter ICD patient cohort. The multicenter database consists of data from 361 patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for standard indications, that is, documented episodes of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardias with poor hemodynamic toleration. Data were collected from 1988 to 1995 at three centers in Germany. Two-hundred and three patients (56%) had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 0.30 (group I), and 158 patients (44%) had a LVEF < or = 0.30 respectively (group II). The mean follow-up was 23.9 months (range 3-98 months). Overall survival at 5 years for group II patients was lower, as expected, at 74.1% versus 94.2%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Mortality was higher for each different cause of death in group II patients than in Group I: sudden arrhythmic deaths, 5 versus 1 (P < 0.048); nonsudden cardiac deaths, 16 versus 5 (P < 0.002); noncardiac deaths, 7 versus 2 (P < 0.03). Group II patients received a higher rate of at least one presumably appropriate shock at 86 (54.4%) versus 89 (43.8%) in group I (P < 0.05). However (and somewhat surprisingly), neither the time from ICD implantation to death, comparing only the patients who died, nor the event-free probability of appropriate shocks due to very rapid, sustained ventricular arrhythmias (> 230 beats/min), including a presumed risk of sudden arrhythmogenic death, differed between groups I and II. Sudden cardiac death was only marginally affected by LVEF (group I, 1.5% actuarial, 5-year survival 99.5%; group II, 3.1% and 95.8%, respectively). Therefore, the lower overall survival in ICD patients with LVEF < or = 0.30 resulted mainly from causes of death that cannot be directly influenced by cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. However, because group II patients had a far higher incidence of at least one ventricular tachyarrhythmia terminated by ICD shocks than group I patients, they also probably derived benefit from ICD therapy.
左心室功能损害程度是接受心脏复律除颤器植入评估患者长期预后的一个公认重要预后指标。左心室功能如何影响全因死亡率、猝死和心源性死亡的发生,是当前主要的争论话题,本文将从近期一个大型多中心植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)患者队列对此进行分析。该多中心数据库包含361例因标准适应证接受植入式心脏复律除颤器的患者数据,即记录到的室颤发作或血流动力学耐受性差的持续性室性心动过速发作。数据于1988年至1995年在德国三个中心收集。203例患者(56%)左心室射血分数(LVEF)>0.30(I组),158例患者(44%)LVEF≤0.30(II组)。平均随访时间为23.9个月(范围3 - 98个月)。正如预期的那样,II组患者5年总生存率较低,分别为74.1%,而I组为94.2%(P<0.0001)。II组患者各种不同死因的死亡率均高于I组:心律失常性猝死,分别为5例和1例(P<0.048);非猝死性心源性死亡,分别为16例和5例(P<0.002);非心源性死亡,分别为7例和2例(P<0.03)。II组患者至少接受一次可能合适电击的发生率更高,为86例(54.4%),而I组为89例(43.8%)(P<0.05)。然而(且有点令人惊讶的是),仅比较死亡患者时,从ICD植入到死亡的时间,以及因非常快速、持续的室性心律失常(>230次/分钟)导致的合适电击的无事件概率,包括推测的心律失常性猝死风险,I组和II组之间并无差异。心源性猝死仅略微受LVEF影响(I组,精算5年生存率为99.5%时,猝死率为1.5%;II组分别为3.1%和95.8%)。因此,LVEF≤0.30的ICD患者较低的总生存率主要源于心脏复律除颤器治疗无法直接影响的死因。然而,由于II组患者至少有一次室性心动过速被ICD电击终止的发生率远高于I组患者,他们可能也从ICD治疗中获益。