Evaluating the predictive value of late gadolinium enhancement assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance on sudden cardiac death in patients selected for implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can evaluate myocardial scar associated with a higher risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), which can guide the selection between cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without a defibrillator (CRT-P/CRT-D). Our aim was to investigate the association between LGE and SCD risk in patients with CRT using the LGE-CMR technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic literature search using four databases. The target population was CRT candidates. The primary endpoint was SCD. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Fifteen eligible articles were included with a total of 2494 patients, of whom 27%, 56%, and 19% had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), CRT-D, and CRT-P, respectively. Altogether, 54.71% of the cohort was LGE positive, who had a 72% higher risk for SCD (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.18-2.50) compared to LGE negatives. In non-ischemic patients, the proportion of LGE positivity was 46.6%, with a significantly higher risk for SCD as compared to LGE negatives (HR 2.42; 95% CI 1.99-2.94). The subgroup of CRT-only patients showed no difference between the LGE-positive vs. negative candidates (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.82-1.68). Comparable SCD risk was observed between articles with short- (OR 7.47; 95% CI 0.54-103.12) vs. long-term (OR 6.15; 95% CI 0.96-39.45) follow-up time. CONCLUSION: LGE-CMR positivity was associated with an increased SCD risk; however, in CRT candidates, the difference in risk reduction between LGE positive vs. negative patients was statistically not significant, suggesting a role of reverse remodeling. LGE-CMR before device implantation could be crucial in identifying high-risk patients even in non-ischemic etiology.

The prevalence of frailty and its effect on the outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

Frailty is a complex clinical syndrome associated with aging and comorbidities, which correlates with unfavorable outcomes. However, in heart failure patients, frailty is very common, data is scarce about those, who are eligible for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. We investigated the incidence of frailty and the association of Frailty Index (FI) with the outcome. Thirty baseline clinical parameters were used by the Rockwood cumulative deficit method to determine patients' FI in our single-center cohort. Based on previous studies, patients with FI ≤ 0.210 were considered as non-frail, those with FI 0.10-0.210 were classified in Frail-1, with FI > 0.10 in Frail-2 groups, respectively. Echocardiographic response after 12 months and all-cause mortality were investigated by frailty groups. Among 1004 included patients, 75 (7%) were considered Non-frail, 271 (27%) grouped in Frail-1, and 658 (66%) in Frail-2 with a median FI of 0.36 (0.28-0.43). Patients in Frail-2 group were older, with more comorbidities compared with non-frail patients or those in Group Frail-1. During the median follow-up time of 4.8 years, 29 (39%) patients died in the Non-frail, 140 (52%) in Frail-1, and 471 (72%) in the Frail-2 groups (log-rank p < 0.001). Group Frail-2 showed an unfavorable outcome compared to the non-frail (HR 2.49, 95%CI 1.92-3.22; p < 0.001) and the Frail-1 group (1.83, 95%CI 1.55-2.16; p < 0.001). In our HFrEF patients eligible for CRT implantation, patients were exceedingly vulnerable with a high prevalence of frailty. The calculated frailty index was associated with outcome and proved to be prevalent in individual risk stratification.

Phenogrouping and risk stratification of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade using topological data analysis.

Choosing the optimal device during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade can be challenging. Therefore, we sought to provide a solution for identifying patients in whom upgrading to a CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) is associated with better long-term survival than upgrading to a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). To this end, we first applied topological data analysis to create a patient similarity network using 16 clinical features of 326 patients without prior ventricular arrhythmias who underwent CRT upgrade. Then, in the generated circular network, we delineated three phenogroups exhibiting significant differences in clinical characteristics and risk of all-cause mortality. Importantly, only in the high-risk phenogroup was upgrading to a CRT-D associated with better survival than upgrading to a CRT-P (hazard ratio: 0.454 (0.228-0.907), p = 0.025). Finally, we assigned each patient to one of the three phenogroups based on their location in the network and used this labeled data to train multi-class classifiers to enable the risk stratification of new patients. During internal validation, an ensemble of 5 multi-layer perceptrons exhibited the best performance with a balanced accuracy of 0.898 (0.854-0.942) and a micro-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.983 (0.980-0.986). To allow further validation, we made the proposed model publicly available ( https://github.com/tokmarton/crt-upgrade-risk-stratification ).

Topological data analysis to identify cardiac resynchronization therapy patients exhibiting benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering multiple factors while deciding between cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) or a pacemaker (CRT-P). Nevertheless, it is still challenging to pinpoint those candidates who will benefit from choosing a CRT-D device in terms of survival. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to use topological data analysis (TDA) to identify phenogroups of CRT patients in whom CRT-D is associated with better survival than CRT-P. METHODS: We included 2603 patients who underwent CRT-D (54%) or CRT-P (46%) implantation at Semmelweis University between 2000 and 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. We applied TDA to create a patient similarity network using 25 clinical features. Then, we identified multiple phenogroups in the generated network and compared the groups' clinical characteristics and survival. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year mortality were 43 (40-46)% and 71 (67-74)% in patients with CRT-D and 48 (45-50)% and 71 (68-74)% in those with CRT-P, respectively. TDA created a circular network in which we could delineate five phenogroups showing distinct patterns of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Three phenogroups (1, 2, and 3) included almost exclusively patients with non-ischemic etiology, whereas the other two phenogroups (4 and 5) predominantly comprised ischemic patients. Interestingly, only in phenogroups 2 and 5 were CRT-D associated with better survival than CRT-P (adjusted hazard ratio 0.61 [0.47-0.80], p < 0.001 and adjusted hazard ratio 0.84 [0.71-0.99], p = 0.033, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: By simultaneously evaluating various clinical features, TDA may identify patients with either ischemic or non-ischemic etiology who will most likely benefit from the implantation of a CRT-D instead of a CRT-P. Topological data analysis to identify phenogroups of CRT patients in whom CRT-D is associated with better survival than CRT-P. AF atrial fibrillation, CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT-D cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, CRT-P cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker, DM diabetes mellitus, HTN hypertension, LBBB left bundle branch block, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MDS multidimensional scaling, MRA mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, NYHA New York Heart Association.

Long-term outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients in the elderly.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of mortality and hospitalization in the elderly. However, data are scarce about their response to device treatment such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate the age-related differences in the effectiveness of CRT, procedure-related complications, and long-term outcome. Between 2000 and 2020, 2656 patients undergoing CRT implantation were registered and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their age: group I, < 65; group II, 65-75; and group III, > 75 years. The primary endpoint was the echocardiographic response defined as a relative increase > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 6 months, and the secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Procedure-related complications were also assessed. After implantation, LVEF showed significant improvement both in the total cohort [28% (IQR 24/33) vs. 35% (IQR 28/40); p < 0.01)] and in each subgroup (27% vs. 34%; p < 0.01, 29% vs. 35%; p < 0.01, 30% vs. 35%; p < 0.01). Response rate was similar in the 3 groups (64% vs. 62% vs. 56%; p = 0.41). During the follow-up, 1574 (59%) patients died. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a significantly lower survival rate in the older groups (log-rank p < 0.001). The cumulative complication rates were similar among the three age groups (27% vs. 28% vs. 24%; p = 0.15). Our results demonstrate that CRT is as effective and safe therapy in the elderly as for young ones. The present data suggest that patients with appropriate indications benefit from CRT in the long term, regardless of age.

The Prognostic Value of Anemia in Patients with Preserved, Mildly Reduced and Recovered Ejection Fraction.

Data on the relevance of anemia in heart failure (HF) patients with an ejection fraction (EF) > 40% by subgroup-preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and the newly defined recovered EF (HFrecEF)-are scarce. Patients with HF symptoms, elevated NT-proBNP, EF ≥ 40% and structural abnormalities were registered in the HFpEF-HFmrEF database. We described the outcome of our HFpEF-HFmrEF cohort by the presence of anemia. Additionally, HFrecEF patients were also selected from HFrEF patients who underwent resynchronization and, as responders, reached 40% EF. Using propensity score matching (PSM), 75 pairs from the HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF groups were matched by their clinical features. After PMS, we compared the survival of the HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF groups. Log-rank, uni-and multivariate regression analyses were performed. From 375 HFpEF-HFmrEF patients, 42 (11%) died during the median follow-up time of 1.4 years. Anemia (HR 2.77; 95%CI 1.47-5.23; p < 0.01) was one of the strongest mortality predictors, which was also confirmed by the multivariate analysis (aHR 2.33; 95%CI 1.21-4.52; p = 0.01). Through PSM, the outcomes for HFpEF-HFmrEF and HFrecEF patients with anemia were poor, exhibiting no significant difference. In HFpEF-HFmrEF, anemia was an independent mortality predictor. Its presence multiplied the mortality risk in those with EF ≥ 40%, regardless of HF etiology.