Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Optimising the dichotomy limit for left ventricular ejection fraction in selecting patients for defibrillator therapy
Yee Guan Yap1, Trinh Duong, J Martin Bland
1Department of Cardiological Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK. ygyap@aol.com
Insights
Determining the optimal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) threshold for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) is complex. No single LVEF limit effectively identifies all patients who would benefit from ICDs for primary prevention.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Patient selection for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment post-myocardial infarction (MI) lacks definitive guidelines.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a key factor, but its optimal threshold for ICD implantation remains debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify the optimal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) dichotomy limit for implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI).
- To evaluate the relationship between LVEF and mortality outcomes in post-MI patients to inform prophylactic ICD decision-making.
Main Methods:
- Pooled data from placebo arms of four randomized trials involving 2828 patients with reduced left ventricular function after MI.
- Statistical analysis to assess the predictive value of LVEF on all-cause, arrhythmic cardiac, and non-arrhythmic cardiac mortality over a 2-year follow-up period.
Main Results:
- Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly predicted mortality; each 10% reduction in LVEF below 40% increased mortality risks.
- A U-shaped relationship was observed between LVEF dichotomy limits and the number of patients needing treatment to prevent one arrhythmic death.
- In patients with LVEF ≤10%, all deaths were non-arrhythmic, suggesting limited benefit from ICDs in this subgroup.
Conclusions:
- No single LVEF threshold is entirely satisfactory for selecting patients for prophylactic ICD therapy due to a trade-off between sensitivity and predictive accuracy.
- Implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment showed no benefit for patients with LVEF ≤10% as they experienced non-arrhythmic deaths.
- Reliance solely on LVEF is insufficient for optimal patient selection for primary prevention of cardiac arrest using ICDs.
Background:
The selection of patients for prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrilator (ICD) treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial.
Aim:
To determine the optimum left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) dichotomy limit for ICD treatment in patients with a history of MI.
Methods And Results:
Data from the placebo arms of four randomised trials were pooled to create a cohort of 2828 patients (2206 men, mean (SD) age 65 (11) years) with reduced left ventricular function after MI. The median LVEF was 33% (range 6-40%). LVEF significantly predicted mortality. Each 10% reduction in LVEF <40% conferred a 42% increase in all-cause mortality, a 39% increase in arrhythmic cardiac mortality and a 49% increase in non-arrhythmic cardiac mortality over the 2-year period of follow-up (p<0.001 for all modes of mortality). As the LVEF progressively decreased from < or =40% to < or =10%, the data show a U-shaped relationship between the dichotomy limit for LVEF used and the number of patients who must be treated to prevent one arrhythmic death in 2 years. At an LVEF of 16-20%, more patients are likely to die from arrhythmic than non-arrhythmic cardiac deaths, whereas in those with LVEF < or =10% all deaths were non-arrhythmic. However, the total number of deaths substantially decreased with lower LVEF.
Conclusion:
A trade-off exists between the sensitivity and positive predictive accuracy across a range of LVEF, and no single dichotomy limit is completely satisfactory. In patients with LVEF < or =10% ICD treatment was not beneficial as all patients in this subgroup died from non-arrhythmic causes. The use of a single dichotomy limit for LVEF alone is not sufficient in selecting patients for ICD treatment in the primary prevention of cardiac arrest.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies