Incidence of left ventricular function improvement after primary prevention ICD implantation for non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a multicentre experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SCD-HeFT study demonstrated a benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM). However, NIDCM may improve spontaneously, even after waiting 6-9 months on optimal medical treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of left ventricular (LV) function improvement in patients receiving primary prevention ICDs for NIDCM. METHODS: All patients with NIDCM receiving primary prevention ICDs (non-cardiac resynchronisation therapy) from 2005 to the present at our institutions were retrospectively studied. All patients had NIDCM confirmed by a lack of significant stenoses on coronary angiography, a lack of significant valvular abnormalities on echo, and LV dysfunction with ejection fraction (EF) <35%. All patients had to have had a diagnosis of NIDCM for at least 9 months and be receiving optimal medical treatment for at least 3 months before implant according to the guidelines. All patients had at least New York Heart Association (NYHA) II symptoms. Baseline and follow-up EF was documented by quantitative echo and/or multi-gated acquisition scan. RESULTS: 332 patients were identified by a database search. Patients were aged 67+/-11 years, 75% of them were male, NYHA 2.3+/-0.7, with EF 25+/-13%, and LV diastolic diameter 61+/-10 mm. Time from initial NIDCM diagnosis to implant was 11+/-6 months and duration of medical treatment before implant was 8+/-5 months. Treatment at the time of implant included ACE inhibitors or ARBs (85%), beta blockers (77%), spironolactone (53%), loop diuretic (63%) and digoxin (50%). Repeat EF assessment was available in 309/332 (93%) 8+/-6 months after implant. EF improved to >35% in 37/309 (12%) patients. Patients who improved had a shorter time from diagnosis to implant (9+/-3 vs 13+/-5 months respectively, p=0.03). No other significant predictors were identified for patients with improved EF. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of following guidelines for implantation of primary prevention ICDs in patients with NIDCM, a substantial number of patients (12%) experience improvement in LV function to levels above those recommended for ICD implant. A shorter time from diagnosis to implant may predict post-implant improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".