Comparative Evaluation of Four Risk Scores for Predicting Mortality in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator for Primary Prevention.

Introduction and objectives: Several clinical risk scores have been developed to identify patients at high risk of all-cause mortality despite implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. We aimed to examine and compare the predictive capacity of 4 simple scoring systems (MADIT-II, FADES, PACE and SHOCKED) for predicting mortality after defibrillator implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a Mediterranean country. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation between January 2010 and December 2011 were included. Results: A total of 916 patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease were included (mean age, 62 +/- 11 years, 81.4% male). Over 33.4 +/- 12.9 months, 113 (12.3%) patients died (cardiovascular origin in 86 [9.4%] patients). At 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, mortality rates were 4.5%, 7.6%, 10.8%, and 12.3% respectively. All the risk scores showed a stepwise increase in the risk of death throughout the scoring system of each of the scores and all 4 scores identified patients at greater risk of mortality. The scores were significantly associated with all-cause mortality throughout the follow-up period. PACE displayed the lowest c-index value regardless of whether the population had heart disease of ischemic (c-statistic = 0.61) or nonischemic origin (c-statistic = 0.61), whereas MADIT-II (c-statistic = 0.67 and 0.65 in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, respectively), SHOCKED (c-statistic = 0.68 and 0.66, respectively), and FADES (c-statistic = 0.66 and 0.60) provided similar c-statistic values (P >= .09). Conclusions: In this nontrial-based cohort of Mediterranean patients, the 4 evaluated risk scores showed a significant stepwise increase in the risk of death. Among the currently available risk scores, MADIT-II, FADES, and SHOCKED provide slightly better performance than PACE. (C) 2016 Sociedad Espanola de Cardiologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.