4.5 Article

Ejection fraction assessment and survival: An analysis of the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT)

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 156, Issue 6, Pages 1196-1200

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.007

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01 HL055766-04, UO1 HL55297, U01 HL055297, U01 HL055766-05, U01 HL055766-07, U01 HL055766-06, UO1 HL55496, U01 HL055766-03, UO1 HL55766] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Ejection fraction (EF) is an important method of mortality prediction among cardiac patients, and has been used to identify the highest risk patients for enrollment in the defibrillator primary prevention trials. Evidence suggests that measures of EF by different imaging modalities may not be equivalent. In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), the type of imaging modality for EF assessment was not mandated. Methods Baseline assessment of EF was performed using either echocardiography, radionuclide angiography (RNA), or contrast angiography. Multivariable analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine whether the modality of assessing EF affected the likelihood of survival. Results Among the 2,521 patients enrolled in SCD-HeFT, EF was measured by RNA in 616 (24%), echocardiography in 1,469 (58%), and contrast angiography in 436 (17%). Mean EF as measured by RNA was 25.1 % +/- 6.9%; by echocardiography, 23.8 +/- 6.9%; and by angiography, 21.9 +/- 6.9%. These measures were significantly different (P <.001), and each pairwise comparison differed significantly (P <.001 for each). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in survival between patients enrolled based on RNA versus echocardiography (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.28), RNA versus angiography (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97-1.62), or echocardiography versus angiography (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94-1.48). Conclusions Among patients enrolled in SCD-HeFT, the distribution of ejection fractions measured by radionuclide angiography differed from those measured by echocardiography or contrast angiograms. Survival did not differ according to modality of EF assessment. (Am Heart J 2008; 156:1196-200.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available