debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
INHERITED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE UNIT
Risk Stratification in HCM is Feasible
Using a Clinical Score (PRO)
![Page 2: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IT’S DIFFICULT!
![Page 3: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. COMPLEXITY
![Page 4: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Davies M. SGHMS
![Page 5: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hypertrophy
Fibrosis
Disarray
Sarcomeric protein gene mutation
Calcium
transients
Impulse
generation
Impulse
propagation
Modulators:
Fixed:
Genetic
(Histology)
Variable:
Haemodynamics
Ischaemia
Autonomic
Exercise
+ = Ventricular
Arrhythmia
Cell Organ
![Page 6: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2. THE DATA
![Page 7: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
mean n=1238 pts
mean n=176 patients
Young, very symptomatic, ↑ LVOTO
Study marker size is weighted to study cohort size
0.81%
![Page 8: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Cum
ula
tive S
urv
ival
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Years
16 patients (19±8 yrs)
59% (95% CI 33-84)
at 5 years
Elliott P et al JACC 1999; J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:1596-601
6.1±4.0 (0.5-14.5)yrs
Secondary prevention
![Page 9: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Youth
Genotype
Family History
NYHA III/IV
Exercise capacity
Syncope
Severe LVH
Large gradient
Diastolic dysfunction
Abn Exercise BP
Ischaemia
Atrial fibrillation
Non-sustained VT
Inducible VT/VF
Fractionation
Family History
Syncope
Exercise BP
NSVT
LVH
“Risk Factors”
![Page 10: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Follow-up (months)
Cu
mu
lative
Su
rviv
al
Log Rank p<0.002
N=630
Elliott PM et al. Lancet 2001;357:420-24
0
2
1
3
Log Rank for Trend p=0.0001
![Page 12: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
PP Dimitrow et al. EHJ 2010
![Page 13: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Principle of risk stratification
5 RF
4 RF
3 RF
2 RF
1 RF
No risk factors
Incre
asin
g r
isk o
f V
F
This is a clinical risk score
![Page 15: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
LVOTO
Late Gad
Apical Aneurysm
Compound mutations
![Page 16: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
IS THERE A HIERARCHY OF
RISK FACTORS?
![Page 18: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Single Risk
Factor:
O’Mahony C. et al. Heart 2013
![Page 19: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
CAN WE USE GENETICS/CMR
AS ARBITERS?
![Page 20: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Genetics/LGE as predictors of SCD
FH SCD
Syncope
Age
LVOTO
LA size
AF
MWT
NSVT
SCD
LGE
Genetics
?
![Page 21: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Complex genotypes and SCD
Double mutations
• Richard et al; Circ 2003 – 7/197 (4%)
– No detailed follow-up data
• Van Driest et al; JACC 2004 – 10/397 (2.5%)
– No detailed follow-up data
• Ingles et al; JMG 2005 – 4/80 (5%)
– All SCD were not genotyped
Triple mutations
• Girolami et al; JACC
2010
– 4/488 (0.8%)
– 2 MWT>30mm
– Outcomes
• 3 dilated LV with HF
with 1 pt having ICD
shocks
• 1 pt aborted SCD
![Page 22: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CMR AND SCD RISK PREDICTION
![Page 23: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
JC Moon et al. JACC 2004
![Page 24: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
LGE studies and SCD
![Page 25: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
• 7 centres
• N=1293 but highly selected
• FU 3.3y
• Visual greyscale method (similar to 6SD)
![Page 26: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
0
.25
.5.7
5
1
No LGE with LGEModel
ROC AUC 95% CI
SCD risk model:
1) %LGE
1) Four conventional SCD
risk factors collapsed as 1
continuous variable
1) maximal LV thickness.
![Page 27: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
A Flett et al. JACC CVS Imaging 2011
![Page 28: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
O’Mahony C et al. Eur Heart J. 2014 Aug 7;35(30):2010-20
![Page 29: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Major limitation = group prognostication on relative risk
Patient
assessment
0 RF 0.5%/y SCD
1 RF 0.6%/y SCD
↑ risk by 1.4
≥2 RF 1.6%/y SCD
↑ risk by 3.3
![Page 30: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
O’Mahony C. et al. Heart 2013
![Page 31: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
CANDIDATE PREDICTORS
Demographic
Age
Historical
Syncope
Family history of SCD
ECG /
Holter
NSVT
Echo
MWT
LV diastolic size
LVOT gradient
LA size
C O’Mahony et al. Circ AE 2013
![Page 32: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Hazard Ratio
O’Mahony C et al. Eur Heart J. 2014 Aug 7;35(30):2010-20
![Page 33: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
HCM Risk-SCD model for predicting 5 year
risk
O’Mahony C et al. Eur Heart J. 2014 Aug 7;35(30):2010-20
![Page 34: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
IMPLICATIONS?
![Page 35: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Validation: discrimination
• C-index • probability that of a randomly
selected pair of subjects, the
subject with SCD first has the
worse predicted prognosis
• HCM Risk-SCD: 0.70
(95% CI: 0.68, 0.72)
• ACC/ACCF: 0.54
(95% CI: 0.51, 0.56)
0
.25
.5.7
5
1ACCF/AHA 2011 HCM Risk-SCD
C-index 95% CI
![Page 36: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
5-year SCD probability: 10.9%
5-year SCD probability: 5.1%
Asymptomatic
MWT 25mm
NSVT
LA=45 mm
22 year old
LVOT gradient 70mmHg
56 year old
LVOT gradient 28mmHg
![Page 37: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Prevention of Sudden Cardiac
Death
Recommendations for ICD in
each risk category take into
account not only the absolute
statistical risk, but also the
age and general health of the
patient, socio-economic
factors and the psychological
impact of therapy.
![Page 38: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Take Home Messages
• Sudden Death is uncommon in patients with HCM
• The risk of SCD can be estimated using simple
non-invasive assessment and HCM RISK-SCD
• Future refinement of risk prediction should be
based on robust modelling and not simply “expert
opinion” alone.
![Page 39: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
REBUTTAL
![Page 41: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
“INDIVIDUALS” VERSUS
GROUPS
![Page 42: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Majority of
deaths occur in
low risk
populations
BUT
The proportion
of patients at
low risk that die
is very small
![Page 43: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
N SCD % Annual SCD
≥ 2 RF 412.0 32.0 7.8 1.6
1 RF 1074.0 27.0 2.5 0.5
0 RF 1580.0 25.0 1.6 0.3
![Page 44: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
• Method #1: Relying on past experience and
training to make an intuitive prediction.
• Method #2: Relying wholly on a statistical
prediction model developed to be used in that
situation.
• Method #3: Taking account of the output of
the statistical prediction model but possibly
modifying it on the basis of professional
experience and intuition.
![Page 48: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
This study confirms and greatly extends previous reports that
mechanical prediction is typically as accurate or more accurate
than clinical prediction.
![Page 49: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
No SCD
SCD
No SCD
SCD
Risk of SCD
Risk of SCD
“The impossible dream”
![Page 50: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Risk Stratification in HCM is Feasible
Using a Clinical Score
YES
![Page 52: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
• “We aren’t dealing with groups, we
are dealing with this individual
case.”
• It is doubtful that one can profitably
debate this cliché in a case
conference, since anyone who puts
it quite this way is not educable in
ten minutes.
![Page 53: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
What will Dr Maron say?
• SCD is a devastating consequence of HCM
• The ICD is life saving
• HCM is a heterogeneous disease and therefore
not suitable for complex “mathematical” solutions
![Page 54: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
What will Dr Maron say?
And yet…
• We can identify high risk patients using selected
risk factors
• When in doubt do an MRI and all will be clear
![Page 55: Debate risk stratification in hcm is feasible using a clinical score (pro)](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062522/587a0baa1a28ab01268b6c83/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Just how unpredictable is HCM?
• LA size is associated with AF and stroke
• End-stage disease has a poor prognosis
• LVOTO responds well to surgery
• Patients over 60 have a lower incidence of SCD
Etc…