Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Heart Rhythm. 2016 Apr 19;13(8):1661–1666. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.04.013

Table 3.

Associations of changes LVEF and CMR characteristic with appropriate shock and HF hospitalization

Appropriate shock (n=23) Heart failure hospitalization (n=45)
Model 1 * Model 2 Model 1 * Model 2
HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI)


Changes in LVEF
  Worsened 1.09(0.38, 3.10) 1.16(0.39, 3.45) 2.78(1.34, 5.79) 2.88(1.33, 6.25)
  Unchanged Reference Reference Reference Reference
  Improved 0.39(0.13, 1.23) 0.50(0.16, 1.59) 0.39(0.18, 0.84) 0.37(0.17, 0.82)
  P-trend 0.08 0.17 <0.001 <0.001
CMR scar variable
  Etiology-specific tertile 1 Reference Reference Reference Reference
  Etiology-specific tertile 2 1.86(0.59, 5.88) 1.69(0.55, 5.21) 1.36(0.64, 2.90) 1.27(0.56, 2.89)
  Etiology-specific tertile 3 2.89 (0.92, 9.10) 2.39 (0.79, 7.24) 1.26 (0.54, 2.91) 0.88 (0.37, 2.11)
  P-trend 0.07 0.12 0.55 0.82
*

Model 1: Adjusted for age, sex, race, device type, atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy etiology, and baseline LVEF.

Model 2: Further included changes in LVEF and CMR scar variable in the same model.

This variable represents gray zone among participants with ischemic cardiomyopathy and total scar among participants with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, respectively