The efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) has not been studied in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and left ventricular dysfunction. We sought to identify predictors of long-term survival among ICD recipients with and without ESRD. Methods Patients implanted with an ICD at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were retrospectively identified. Clinical and demographic characteristics were collected. Patients were stratified by the presence of ESRD at the time of ICD implant. Mortality data were collected from the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). Results A total of 3453 patients received an ICD at our institution in the pre-specified time period, 184 (5.3%) of whom had ESRD. In general, ESRD patients were sicker and had more comorbidities. Kaplan Meier survival curve showed that ESRD patients had worse survival as compared with non-dialysis patients (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, patients with ESRD remained at increased long-term mortality in the Cox model. The one-year mortality in the ESRD patients was 18.1%, as compared with 7.7% in the non-dialysis cohort (p < 0.001). The three-year mortality in ESRD patients was 43%, as compared with 21% in the non-dialysis cohort (p < 0.001). Conclusion ESRD patients are at significantly increased risk of mortality as compared with a non-dialysis cohort. While the majority of these patients survive more than one year post-diagnosis, the three-year mortality is high (43%). Randomized studies addressing the benefits of ICDs in ESRD patients are needed to better define their value for primary prevention of SCD.
Background: Left ventricular dyssynchrony is often diagnosed by comparing velocity curves from Doppler tissue images of two or more myocardial regions. Velocity curves are generated by placing sample volumes or regions of interest (ROIs) within the myocardium. ROIs need to be manually relocated to maintain a midmyocardial location as the heart moves, but are frequently left in a stationary position. The error caused by use of a stationary ROI may affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony, but this has not been quantified.
Objective: We hypothesized that using a stationary ROI to quantify dyssynchrony from Doppler tissue images would affect the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure.
Methods: We quantified dyssynchrony in 18 patients with heart failure using 4 published dyssynchrony parameters: septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, and cross-correlation delay (XCD). Each dyssynchrony parameter was measured using both tracked and stationary ROIs. Results: Use of a stationary ROI did not change the diagnosis of dyssynchrony when using XCD. However, ROI tracking changed the diagnosis of dyssynchrony in 17%, 11%, and 17% of patients when using septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak, respectively. XCD showed the lowest percent difference between tracked and stationary ROIs (4 ± 9% vs 22 ± 53%, 50 ± 167%, and 12 ± 30%, respectively, for septal-to-lateral delay, maximum difference in the basal 2- or 4-chamber times to peak, and SD of the 12 basal and midwall times to peak).
Conclusion: Manual ROI tracking is required when using conventional time-to-peak parameters to diagnose dyssynchrony. XCD diagnosis of dyssynchrony can be performed accurately with a stationary ROI.