Re-worsening left ventricular ejection fraction after response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

A Prediction Model Based on Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index Combined with Other Predictors for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients

Objective

To evaluate the prognostic value of the systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII) for predicting in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and establish a relevant nomogram.

Methods

This study included 954 AMI patients. We examined three inflammatory factors (SII, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR)) to see which one predicts in-hospital MACEs better. The predictors were subsequently screened using bidirectional stepwise regression method, and a MACE nomogram was constructed via logistic regression analysis. The predictive value of the model was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the clinical utility of the nomogram was evaluated using decision curve analysis. We also compared the nomogram with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scoring system.

Results

334 (35.0%) patients had MACEs. The SII (AUC =0.684) had a greater predictive value for in-hospital MACEs in AMI patients than the PLR (AUC =0.597, P<0.001) or NLR (AUC=0.654, P=0.01). The area under the curve (AUC) of the SII-based multivariable model for predicting MACEs, which was based on the SII, Killip classification, left ventricular ejection fraction, age, urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration and electrocardiogram-based diagnosis, was 0.862 (95% CI: 0.833-0.891). Decision curve and calibration curve analysis revealed that SII-based multivariable model demonstrated a good fit and calibration and provided positive net benefits than the model without SII. The predictive value of the SII-based multivariable model was greater than that of the GRACE scoring system (P<0.001).

Conclusion

SII is a promising, reliable biomarker for identifying AMI patients at high risk of in-hospital MACEs, and SII-based multivariable model may serve as a quick and easy tool to identify these patients.

Assessing cardiac resynchronization therapy response in heart failure patients: a comparative analysis of efficacy and outcomes between transvenous and epicardial leads

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected heart failure (HF) patients. Although transvenous implantation is the standard method, it is not feasible in some patients, so the epicardial lead emerges as an alternative. We aim to compare CRT response, procedure-related complications, and the occurrence of clinical outcomes between patients with transvenous and epicardial leads. In a single-center retrospective study, we enrolled consecutive HF patients submitted to CRT implantation with a defibrillator between 2013 and 2022. Clinical response was defined as an improvement of at least one of the New York Heart Association classes with no occurrence of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in the first year of follow-up. Echocardiographic response was attained with an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction 10% or a reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume >15% at 6-12 months after CRT implantation. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization) and all-cause mortality were evaluated. From a total of 149 patients, 38% (n=57) received an epicardial lead. Clinical (63% versus 60%, p=0.679) and echocardiographic (63% versus 60%, p=0.679) responses were similar between the transvenous and epicardial groups. Patients in the transvenous group had a shorter hospital stay (2 versus 7 days, p<0.001). Procedure-related complications were comparable between groups (24% versus 28%, p=0.572), but left ventricular lead-related complications were more frequent in the transvenous group (14% versus 2%). During a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the rate of MACE was 30% (n=44), with no differences in both groups (p=0.591), neither regarding HF hospitalization (p=0.917) nor cardiovascular mortality (p=0.060). Nevertheless, the epicardial group had a higher rate of all-cause mortality (35% versus 20%, p=0.005), the majority occurring during long-term follow-up (>12 months), with no deaths in the postoperative period. Considering the comparable rates of CRT response, procedure-related complications, and MACE between groups, we conclude that epicardial lead is a feasible alternative for CRT when transvenous lead implantation is not possible. The occurrence of a higher number of all-cause deaths in epicardial patients in the long-term follow-up was mainly due to infectious complications (unrelated to the lead) and the progression of oncological/chronic diseases.