IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i2p151-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision to Implant a Cardioverter Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction: The Role of Ejection Fraction v. Other Risk Factor Markers

Author

Listed:
  • James J. Bailey

    (Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, jjbailey@helix.nih.gov)

  • Morrison Hodges

    (Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation)

  • Timothy R. Church

    (University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota)

Abstract

Background . The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial showed that in post—myocardial infarction patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 0.30, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) resulted in a 31% relative reduction in the risk of death when compared with a conventional therapy group. Whether further refinement in risk estimation could be achieved with additional clinical testing to qualify patients for primary prevention with ICDs remains problematic. Methods . The authors analyzed Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial registry data to estimate sensitivity and specificity of EF, ventricular premature frequency, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia for predicting death. They combined the results with similar data from the literature and used summarizing receiver operating characteristic (meta-ROC) curves to estimate overall operational values for sensitivity and specificity for each clinical test. They estimated aggregate values for prior probability to project risks when tests were used singly and in combination. Results . The authors used arrhythmia markers and heart rate variability to further stratify low-EF patients (prior risk = 20.3%); proportionately, 20.4% were predicted at high risk ( > 30%) and 40.5% at low risk (

Suggested Citation

  • James J. Bailey & Morrison Hodges & Timothy R. Church, 2007. "Decision to Implant a Cardioverter Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction: The Role of Ejection Fraction v. Other Risk Factor Markers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 151-160, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:151-160
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297392
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297392?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Donald A. Redelmeier & Deva Thiruchelvam & Robert J. Tibshirani, 2022. "Testing for a Sweet Spot in Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 208-216, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:151-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.