植入式心律转复除颤器治疗缺血性与非缺血性心肌病心力衰竭疗效的比较分析。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Emre Demir, Mehmet Ruhat Köse, Evrim Şimşek, Mehmet Nurullah Orman, Mehdi Zoghi, Cemil Gürgün, Sanem Nalbantgil
{"title":"植入式心律转复除颤器治疗缺血性与非缺血性心肌病心力衰竭疗效的比较分析。","authors":"Emre Demir, Mehmet Ruhat Köse, Evrim Şimşek, Mehmet Nurullah Orman, Mehdi Zoghi, Cemil Gürgün, Sanem Nalbantgil","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-09074-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well-established, particularly in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, the benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ICDs in HFrEF patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 1271 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were analyzed, of whom 46.3% received ICD implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, advanced heart failure therapies, and ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with ICM, ICD implantation significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861; p = 0.0004). However, in NICM patients, ICD therapy did not significantly reduce mortality or ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026; p = 0.074). Among 103 patients whose LVEF improved above 35% and who were excluded from the primary analysis, ICD implantation was associated with a survival advantage in NICM (HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870; p = 0.0041). In NICM patients, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included NYHA class III-IV (HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871; p = 0.001), moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126; p = 0.005), lower TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987; p = 0.011), and elevated NT-proBNP (log-transformed) (HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183; p = 0.019). A multivariate risk score developed through logistic regression in NICM patients with LVEF < 50% demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the primary outcome (AUC: 0.819, 95% CI 0.778-0.856). In conclusion, while ICDs confer clear survival benefits in ICM, their efficacy in NICM remains uncertain. Refinement of patient selection criteria, particularly in NICM, is warranted as modern heart failure therapies continue to evolve.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"24631"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.\",\"authors\":\"Emre Demir, Mehmet Ruhat Köse, Evrim Şimşek, Mehmet Nurullah Orman, Mehdi Zoghi, Cemil Gürgün, Sanem Nalbantgil\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-09074-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well-established, particularly in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, the benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ICDs in HFrEF patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 1271 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were analyzed, of whom 46.3% received ICD implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, advanced heart failure therapies, and ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with ICM, ICD implantation significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861; p = 0.0004). However, in NICM patients, ICD therapy did not significantly reduce mortality or ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026; p = 0.074). Among 103 patients whose LVEF improved above 35% and who were excluded from the primary analysis, ICD implantation was associated with a survival advantage in NICM (HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870; p = 0.0041). In NICM patients, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included NYHA class III-IV (HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871; p = 0.001), moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126; p = 0.005), lower TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987; p = 0.011), and elevated NT-proBNP (log-transformed) (HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183; p = 0.019). A multivariate risk score developed through logistic regression in NICM patients with LVEF < 50% demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the primary outcome (AUC: 0.819, 95% CI 0.778-0.856). In conclusion, while ICDs confer clear survival benefits in ICM, their efficacy in NICM remains uncertain. Refinement of patient selection criteria, particularly in NICM, is warranted as modern heart failure therapies continue to evolve.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"24631\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09074-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09074-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

植入式心律转复除颤器(ICDs)在预防心力衰竭患者射血分数降低(HFrEF)的心源性猝死中的作用已得到证实,特别是在缺血性心肌病(ICM)中。然而,icd在非缺血性心肌病(NICM)中的益处仍不确定。本研究旨在比较ICDs在HFrEF合并缺血性和非缺血性心肌病患者中的疗效。本研究共分析1271例左室射血分数(LVEF)≤35%的患者,其中46.3%的患者接受了ICD植入。主要终点是全因死亡率、晚期心力衰竭治疗和室性心律失常的综合指标。在ICM患者中,ICD植入显著降低了主要终点的风险(HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861;p = 0.0004)。然而,在NICM患者中,ICD治疗并没有显著降低死亡率或室性心律失常(HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026;p = 0.074)。在103例LVEF改善超过35%并被排除在初步分析之外的患者中,ICD植入与NICM的生存优势相关(HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870;p = 0.0041)。在NICM患者中,主要终点的独立预测因子包括NYHA III-IV级(HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871;p = 0.001),中度至重度二尖瓣反流(HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126;p = 0.005),较低的TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987;p = 0.011), NT-proBNP (log-transformed)升高(HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183;p = 0.019)。通过logistic回归对NICM合并LVEF患者进行多因素风险评分
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.

Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.

Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.

Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure.

The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well-established, particularly in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). However, the benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ICDs in HFrEF patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 1271 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were analyzed, of whom 46.3% received ICD implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, advanced heart failure therapies, and ventricular arrhythmias. In patients with ICM, ICD implantation significantly reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.717, 95% CI 0.595-0.861; p = 0.0004). However, in NICM patients, ICD therapy did not significantly reduce mortality or ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.573-1.026; p = 0.074). Among 103 patients whose LVEF improved above 35% and who were excluded from the primary analysis, ICD implantation was associated with a survival advantage in NICM (HR 0.645, 95% CI 0.478-0.870; p = 0.0041). In NICM patients, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included NYHA class III-IV (HR 1.934, 95% CI 1.302-2.871; p = 0.001), moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (HR 1.956, 95% CI 1.224-3.126; p = 0.005), lower TAPSE (HR 0.945, 95% CI 0.904-0.987; p = 0.011), and elevated NT-proBNP (log-transformed) (HR 1.531, 95% CI 1.074-2.183; p = 0.019). A multivariate risk score developed through logistic regression in NICM patients with LVEF < 50% demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the primary outcome (AUC: 0.819, 95% CI 0.778-0.856). In conclusion, while ICDs confer clear survival benefits in ICM, their efficacy in NICM remains uncertain. Refinement of patient selection criteria, particularly in NICM, is warranted as modern heart failure therapies continue to evolve.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信