{"title":"心脏再同步化治疗装置患者室性心律失常风险分层。","authors":"Nobuhiko Ueda, Kohei Ishibashi, Takashi Noda, Satoshi Oka, Yuichiro Miyazaki, Akinori Wakamiya, Kenzaburo Nakajima, Tsukasa Kamakura, Mitsuru Wada, Yuko Inoue, Koji Miyamoto, Satoshi Nagase, Takeshi Aiba, Hideaki Kanzaki, Chisato Izumi, Teruo Noguchi, Kengo Kusano","doi":"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.</p>","PeriodicalId":94305,"journal":{"name":"Circulation reports","volume":"7 10","pages":"861-868"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510959/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Stratification Among Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices.\",\"authors\":\"Nobuhiko Ueda, Kohei Ishibashi, Takashi Noda, Satoshi Oka, Yuichiro Miyazaki, Akinori Wakamiya, Kenzaburo Nakajima, Tsukasa Kamakura, Mitsuru Wada, Yuko Inoue, Koji Miyamoto, Satoshi Nagase, Takeshi Aiba, Hideaki Kanzaki, Chisato Izumi, Teruo Noguchi, Kengo Kusano\",\"doi\":\"10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation reports\",\"volume\":\"7 10\",\"pages\":\"861-868\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510959/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Stratification Among Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices.
Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging.
Methods and results: In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).
Conclusions: The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.