Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Arrhythmic prognosis according to left ventricular systolic dysfunction severity in cardiac sarcoidosis
Main findingResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.85 95% CI 0.39–1.82Authors' conclusion
CS patients with ICD indications and LVEF 36%-49% carry similarly high arrhythmic risk as those with LVEF ≤35%. Patients with secondary prevention ICDs have the highest overall risk.
Study context
- Population
- Cardiac sarcoidosis patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% at index evaluation
- Participants
- 61 patients
- Exposure
- LVEF ≤35% vs LVEF 36%-49%; secondary vs primary prevention ICD indication
- LVEF ≤35%n = 38
- LVEF 36%-49%n = 23reference
- Outcome
- Survival free of sustained VT/VF after ICD implantation
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.85
95% CI 0.39–1.82
P = 0.67
LVEF ≤35%vs LVEF 36%-49%
HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.39–1.82); P = 0.67
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustained VT/VF, secondaryvs primary prevention ICD indicationMultivariable analysis; only significant predictor | 2.86 (1.23–6.67) | P = 0.015 | |
| 0.10.31310Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Secondary prevention ICD indication
P = 0.11
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Mean sustained VT/VF event burdenSecondary prevention vs Primary prevention | P = 0.005 |
- Mean sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) event burden: Secondary prevention mean 0.47 events per patient-year
- Mean sustained VT/VF event burden: Primary prevention mean 0.11 events per patient-year
Mean sustained VT/VF event burden
- Did not differ significantly between LVEF ≤35% and 36%-49%
Original publication
Arrhythmic prognosis according to left ventricular systolic dysfunction severity in cardiac sarcoidosis. Heart Rhythm. Published 28 August 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →