Odeh, Nour

Background: Transthyretin (TTR) cardiac amyloidosis is a progressive cardiomyopathy with high mortality; however, the role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in this population remains unclear. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with confirmed TTR cardiac amyloidosis, with or without ICDs, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2024, across all three Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota). Diagnosis was confirmed by endomyocardial biopsy or abnormal technetium pyrophosphate (PYP) scintigraphy. A 1:4 propensity score-matched cohort of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with ICDs served as a control group. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, comparing transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (TTR-CA) patients by ICD status and against matched NICM patients. Secondary analyses evaluated predictors of mortality, including the use of tafamidis and the indication for ICD (primary vs. secondary prevention). Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to assess predictors of survival and mortality. Results: A total of 463 patients with confirmed TTR cardiac amyloidosis were included. The median follow-up duration was 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR): 5.3–9.2 years) for the non-ICD group and 6.8 years (IQR: 4.5–9.0 years) for the ICD group. The median age was 74.5 years (IQR: 68.0–80.0 years), and 92.9% of patients were male. Among them, 206 (44.5%) received ICDs and 257 (55.5%) did not. ICD recipients were younger (71.0 vs. 77.0 years; p = 0.001) and had higher rates of hypertension (62.6% vs. 45.6%; p = 0.001), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (62.6% vs. 44.4%; p = 0.001), and diabetes (30.1% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.043). Median left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in the ICD groups (43% vs. 54%; p = 0.007), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were higher in the ICD group (2259.0 pg/mL vs. 1503.0 pg/mL; p = 0.007). Among ICD recipients, 157 (76.2%) received the device for primary prevention, while 48 (23.3%) received the ICD for secondary prevention. Appropriate shocks were delivered in 22 patients (10.6%), primarily for ventricular tachycardia (n = 18) and ventricular fibrillation (n = 4). Inappropriate shocks occurred in six patients (3.0%), and 12 patients (5.8%) experienced device-related complications. Over 10 years of follow-up, ICD implantation did not confer a survival benefit for patients with TTR-CA compared to those without an ICD (p = 0.74). In contrast, a 1:4 propensity-matched NICM cohort with ICDs, which had a median follow-up of 7.1 years (IQR: 4.6–8.8 years), showed significantly improved survival than TTR-CA patients with ICDs (p = 0.034). Among the TTR-CA patients with ICDs, neither the use of tafamidis (p = 0.10) nor the ICD indication (primary vs. secondary prevention; p = 0.85) influenced mortality. In the Cox regression analysis, predictors of mortality in TTR-CA patients included older age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.048; p = 0.001), CKD (HR 1.637; p = 0.029), troponin T >50 ng/L (HR 1.594; p = 0.031), NT-proBNP >3000 pg/mL (HR 1.514; p = 0.050), and ejection fraction <40% (HR 1.935; p = 0.003). ICD implantation was not associated with improved survival (HR 0.932; p = 0.763). Conclusions: In conclusion, our data suggest that ICD therapy may not provide a significant overall survival benefit in older TTR-CA patients with impaired pump function; thus, prospective studies are warranted before any changes to clinical practice are considered. Key predictors of mortality included reduced ejection fraction and elevated cardiac biomarkers. Additional prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of ICDs in treatment strategies for patients with TTR-CA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Degenerative spine disease is a leading cause of disability, with increasing prevalence in the older patients. While age has been identified as an independent predictor of outcomes, its predictive value is limited for similar older patients. Here, we aimed to determine the most predictive frailty score of adverse events in patients aged 80 and older undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. METHODS: We proceeded with a multisite (3 tertiary academic centers) retrospective review including patients undergoing instrumented fusion aged 80 and older from January 2010 to present. A composite end point encompassing 30-day return to operating room, readmission, and mortality was created. We estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for frailty scores (Modified Frailty Index-5 [MFI-5], Modified Frailty Index-11 [MFI-11], and Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) in relation to that composite score. In addition, we estimated the association between each score and the composite end point by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients with an average age of 85 years at the time of surgery were included. We observed a 30-day readmission rate of 11.1%, reoperation of 3.9%, and mortality of 0.6%. The overall rate of the composite end point at 30 days was 25 (15.1%). The AUC for MFI-5 was 0.597 (0.501-0.693), for MFI-11 was 0.620 (0.518-0.723), and for CCI was 0.564 (0.453-0.675). The association between the scores and composite end point did not reach statistical significance for MFI-5 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 [0.98-2.15], P = .061) and CCI (OR = 1.13 [0.97-1.31], P = .113) but was statistically significant for MFI-11 (OR = 1.46 [1.07-2.00], P = .018). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study comparing frailty index scores in octogenarians undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. Our findings suggest that while MFI-11 score correlated with adverse events, the predictive ability of existing scores remains limited, highlighting the need for better approaches to identify select patients at age extremes.