Incidence of nonsustained and sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION: Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) is a frequent phenomenon in some patients with heart disease, but its association with sustained ventricular tachycardias (ventricular tachycardia [VT]/ventricular fibrillation [VF]) is still not clear. The aim of this study was to determine whether NSVT incidence was associated with sustained VT/VF in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective data analysis was conducted in 923 ICD patients with a mean follow-up of 4 months. NSVT and sustained VT/VF were defined as device-detected tachycardias. The incidence rates of NSVT and sustained VT/VF as well as ICD therapies were determined as episodes per patient. The NSVT index was defined as the product of NSVT episodes/day times the mean number of beats per episode, i.e., total beats/day. The NSVT index peak was defined as the highest value on or prior to the day with sustained VT/VF episodes. Patients (n = 393) with NSVT experienced a higher incidence of sustained VT/VF (17.2 +/- 63.0 episodes/patient) and ICD therapies (15.2 +/- 61.4 episodes/patient) than patients (n = 530) without NSVT (sustained VT/VF: 0.5 +/- 6.6 and therapies: 0.5 +/- 5.6; P < 0.0001). Approximately 74% of NSVT index peaks occurred on the same day or <3 days prior to sustained VT/VF episodes. The index was higher for peaks < or =3 days prior to the day with sustained VT/VF (94.3 +/- 140.1 total beats/day) than for peaks >3 days prior to the day with sustained VT/VF (32.7 +/- 55.9 total beats/day; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: ICD patients with NSVT represent a population more likely to experience sustained VT/VF episodes with a temporal association between an NSVT surge and sustained VT/VF occurrence.     

Follow-up of patients with unexplained syncope and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias: analysis of the AVID registry and an AVID substudy. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators

INTRODUCTION: A prospective registry and substudy were conducted in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study to clarify the prognosis and recurrent event rate, risk factors, and impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Included in the AVID registry were patients from all participating sites who had "out of hospital syncope with structural heart disease and EP-inducible VT/VF with symptoms." In addition, 13 collaborating sites provided more in-depth clinical and electrophysiologic data as part of a formal prospective substudy. Patients in the substudy were followed by local investigators for recurrent arrhythmic events and mortality. Registry patients were tracked for fatal outcomes by the National Death Index. A total of 429 patients with syncope were entered in the AVID registry, of whom 80 participated in the substudy. Of the substudy patients, 21 patients (26%) had inducible polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF), 11 patients (14%) had sustained monomorphic VT <200 beats/min, and 48 patients (60%) had sustained monomorphic VT > or = 200 beats/min. The ICD was used as sole therapy in 75% of the syncope substudy patients (and with antiarrhythmic drug in an additional 9%) and in 59% of the syncope registry patients. Survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 93% and 74% for the substudy patients and 90% and 74% for the registry patients, respectively. Survival of the syncope substudy patients (predominantly treated by ICD) was similar to the VT patients treated by ICD and superior to the VT patients treated by an antiarrhythmic drug (P = 0.05) in the randomized main trial. Mortality events in the substudy were marginally predicted by ejection fraction (P = 0.06) but not by electrophysiologic study-induced arrhythmia. The significant predictor of increased mortality in the registry was age (P = 0.003) and of reduced mortality was treatment with ICD (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The results of these analyses support the role of the ICD as primary antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible VT/VF at electrophysiologic study.     

Unexplained syncope in patients with structural heart disease and no documented ventricular arrhythmias: value of electrophysiologically guided implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

AIMS: To evaluate electrophysiologically guided implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with syncope, structural heart disease and no documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (sVT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) was performed in 52 patients (age 62+/-10 years): 40 patients had ischaemic and 12 patients had idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. On PVS sVT and ventricular fibrillation were induced in seven and four patients, respectively, and two patients spontaneously experienced symptomatic sVT. These patients received an ICD (ICD group, n=13). Non-inducible patients were left on conventional therapy (non-ICD group, n=39). During 5+/-2.8 years five ICD patients received therapies, all appropriate. There were seven non-sudden deaths and overall survival analysis revealed no significant difference. Recurrent syncope occurred in five ICD and four non-ICD patients and did not correlate well with sVT. The positive and negative predictive values of PVS for tachyarrhythmias or sudden death were 36 and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Syncope per se does not necessarily herald a bad prognosis. PVS identifies high-risk patients. Induction of ventricular fibrillation with double or triple extrastimuli is of limited value. Patients with poor left ventricular function and bad clinical condition benefit most from an ICD. Syncope and sVT are not necessarily correlated during follow-up, which may merit consideration.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge rates in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible ventricular tachycardia at electrophysiologic study

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the best available strategy to protect patients from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Although unproven, it is commonly utilized to treat subjects with syncope, a negative clinical workup, structural heart disease, and inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) on programmed electrophysiologic stimulation (EPS). The purpose of this paper was to validate this approach. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 36 subjects who received primary ICD therapy for syncope in the setting of structural heart disease with inducible sustained monomorphic VT on EPS. The cohort was predominantly male (32/36) with underlying coronary artery disease (29/36). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31 +/- 12%, and a third of the patients (12/36) had undergone bypass surgery. RESULTS: The study group was followed for a mean of 23 +/- 15 months (range 3-81 months) and experienced an ICD event rate of 22% at 3 months, which increased to 55% at 36 months. This event rate was comparable with the 66% event rate seen in a group of patients with primary ICD therapy for spontaneous life-threatening VT treated during the same time period. No future predictors of ICD events in the study group could be identified. CONCLUSION: Syncope patients with negative workup, structural heart disease, and sustained monomorphic VT at EPS are at high risk for future tachyarrhythmic events. Based on present evidence, primary ICD therapy in this group appears warranted and justified.     

Long term results of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with right ventricular dysplasia and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias

OBJECTIVE—To study the outcome of patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for ventricular tachyarrhythmias complicated by haemodynamic collapse.
DESIGN—Observational study.
SETTING—University hospital.
PATIENTS—Nine consecutive patients (eight male, one female; mean (SD) age, 36 (18) years) with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia presenting with ventricular tachycardia and haemodynamic collapse (n = 6) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 3), treated with an ICD.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Survival; numbers of and reasons for appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions.
RESULTS—After a mean (SD) follow up of 32 (24) months, all patients were alive. Six patients received a median of 19 (range 2-306) appropriate ICD interventions for events detected in the ventricular tachycardia window; four received a median of 2 (range 1-19) appropriate ICD interventions for events detected in the ventricular fibrillation window. Inappropriate interventions were seen for sinus tachycardia (18 episodes in three patients), atrial fibrillation (three episodes in one patient), and for non-sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (one episode in one patient).
CONCLUSIONS—Patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia and malignant ventricular arrhythmias have a high recurrence rate requiring appropriate ICD interventions, but they also often have inappropriate interventions. Programming the device is difficult because this population develops supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias with similar rates.


Keywords: arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; arrhythmia     

心律转复除颤器对室性心律失常的疗效评价

目的 评价80例植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)的临床应用效果,分析植入ICD患者室性心律失常的发作情况以及ICD治疗恶性室性心律失常的疗效.方法 对本院1996年8月至2008年1月来本院就诊定期随访、资料完整的植入了ICD患者进行回顾性临床分析.结果 80例植入了ICD患者(其中11例为二次更换ICD),其中65例(81.25%)为各种器质性心脏病,以冠心病最为常见.随访4～62(26.96±18.97)个月中,72例患者(90%)发生室性心动过速和/或心室颤动,并成功接受ICD治疗,共发生心律失常事件1243次,启动治疗程序1854次,包括抗心动过速起搏成功治疗室速712次,低能量复律和高能量除颤转复治疗共266次.误识别治疗147次.68次心律失常事件在ICD启动治疗程序中自行终止,ICD未继续实施治疗.随访期间共有3例(3.75%)患者死亡.结论 ICD能够有效地治疗室性心律失常.植入术后需要密切随访,根据情况及时调整工作参数.     

Clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

INTRODUCTION: Not all patients experience recurrent sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We evaluated the clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrence following ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 133) underwent 4 +/- 3 serial electrophysiologic studies (EPS) over 50 +/- 26 months following ICD implantation. Sustained VT/VF could always be induced during follow-up EPS in 49 patients; sustained VT/VF was sometimes induced during follow-up EPS in 47 patients; and sustained VT/VF could never be induced during follow-up EPS in 37 patients. Spontaneous VT/VF requiring ICD therapy occurred in 107 patients during follow-up. Patients with sustained VT/VF that was always inducible or sometimes inducible during follow-up experienced more frequent episodes of VT/VF following ICD implant (20.5, 95% CI 12.7-33.0; and 17.8, 95% CI 11.3-28.1 episodes/patient respectively; vs 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.6 episodes/patient for patients with VT/VF never induced, P < 0.001). Inducibility of sustained VT/VF post-ICD implant (P < 0.001) and sustained VT as the presenting arrhythmia (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of spontaneous VT/VF recurrence. CONCLUSION: Reproducibly inducible VT/VF following ICD implantation predicts a high probability of VT/VF recurrence and identifies a cohort of patients who experience frequent episodes of VT/VF over time. Persistent noninducibility of sustained VT/VF identifies a group of patients who experience no or very few episodes of VT/VF recurrence.     

Analysis of the pattern of initiation of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with implantable defibrillators

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to analyze the pattern of initiation of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with varying types of underlying structural heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study group consisted of 90 patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Cardiovascular diagnoses included coronary artery disease in 64 patients (71%). The patients were divided into four groups based on the type and severity of structural heart disease. Two hundred sixty episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias were analyzed. The mean coupling interval of the initiating beat of all ventricular arrhythmias was 523 +/- 171 msec. The coupling interval of the initiating beat was longer in patients with impaired ventricular function, particularly those with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. The prematurity index was similar regardless of the type of underlying structural heart disease. However, the prematurity index was shorter in patients with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) compared to those with monomorphic VT. A pause was observed more commonly before the onset of polymorphic VT/ventricular fibrillation than sustained monomorphic VT. Two hundred twenty-two (85%) of the arrhythmia episodes were initiated by a late-coupled premature beat, 33 (13%) were initiated by an early-coupled premature beat, and 5 episodes (2%) were initiated with a short-long-short sequence. The pattern of initiation of the ventricular arrhythmias was similar in all patient groups and for both monomorphic and polymorphic tachycardias. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that sustained ventricular arrhythmias typically are initiated by late-coupled ventricular premature depolarizations, regardless of the type or severity of underlying structural heart disease or resultant arrhythmia.     

Prognostic significance of frequent premature ventricular complex early after implantation among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Background

Premature ventricular complex (PVC) was mainly studied by 24-hour Holter in previous studies. However, the value of long-term Home Monitoring of PVC burden early after ICD implantation is unknown.

Impact of accelerated ventricular tachyarrhythmias on mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

Background

Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and shock delivery may induce or accelerate tachyarrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We investigated the incidence, triggers and impact on mortality of accelerated ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Methods

Database analysis concerning ventricular tachyarrhythmias accelerated by ATP or shock in 1275 ICD patients (age at implantation 59.7 ± 14.0 years; 81% male).

Results

Within a mean follow-up period of 5.3 ± 4.0 years, intracardiac electrograms were available in 1170 patients (91.8%). Overall 157 episodes of accelerated ventricular tachyarrhythmias were found in 100 of 1170 patients (8.5%). Termination of tachyarrhythmias was achieved by shock delivery in 153 episodes (96.8%). Triggers of accelerated tachyarrhythmias were appropriate ATP in 139 (88.5%) and inappropriate ATP in 14 (8.9%), as well as appropriate and inappropriate shocks in 2 (1.3%) episodes, respectively. Chronic heart failure was significantly correlated with the occurrence and recurrence of acceleration (p < 0.001). Patients with accelerated ventricular tachyarrhythmia and subsequent shock therapy revealed higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.760; 95% CI 1.286–2.410; p < 0.001) as well as higher cardiac mortality (HR 2.555; 95% CI 1.446–4.513; p = 0.001). The correlation between acceleration and all-cause mortality was independent of left ventricular function (HR 2.076; 95% CI 1.633–2.639; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Ventricular ATP with arrhythmia acceleration and subsequent shock delivery is a frequent and serious complication of ICD therapy that predominantly occurs in patients with reduced left ventricular function. Finally, occurrence of accelerated ventricular tachyarrhythmias was associated with increased all-cause mortality.     

Effect of first ventricular tachycardia cycle length on rate of ventricular arrhythmia recurrence in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Background

Some controversies exist regarding the proper treatment of hemodynamically tolerated and slow ventricular tachycardia (VT). We intended to assess the effect of cycle length of first VT episode on total ventricular arrhythmia burden in a cohort of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

Method

Between March 2000 and March 2005, 195 patients underwent ICD implantation at our center. We included 158 patients (mean age, 58.3 ± 12.9 years) with follow-up of 3 months or more in this study. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and ICD-stored data and electrograms were collected and analyzed.

Results

During the follow-up of 16.7 ± 10.6 months, 45 (28.5%) and 20 (12.6%) patients received first appropriate ICD therapy for VT and ventricular fibrillation, respectively. We divided the 45 patients with VT (based on the median value of VT cycle length) into 2 groups. Although patients with VT cycle length of less than 350 had higher total mean number of appropriate ICD therapy (25 vs 6.3, P = .023), during multivariate regression analysis, only left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of less than 25% (P = .020) was correlated with total number of appropriate ICD therapy. First VT cycle length (P = .341), QRS duration (P = .126), age (P = .405), underlying heart disease (P = .310), indication of ICD implantation (P = .113), and sex (P = .886) have failed to predict the total burden of ventricular arrhythmia during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

After adjustment for left ventricular EF, initial VT cycle length per se did not confer a lower risk for subsequent ventricular arrhythmia recurrence compared with those with faster VT. Left ventricular EF of less than 25% was correlated with higher ventricular arrhythmia burden in patients with ICD.     

Implantable defibrillator event rates in patients with unexplained syncope and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: a comparison with patients known to have sustained ventricular tachycardia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical significance of inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias among patients with unexplained syncope.

BACKGROUND

Induction of sustained ventricular arrhythmias at electrophysiology study in patients with unexplained syncope and structural heart disease is usually assigned diagnostic significance. However, the true frequency of subsequent spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the absence of antiarrhythmic medications is unknown.

METHODS

In a retrospective case-control study, the incidence of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapies for sustained ventricular arrhythmias among patients with unexplained syncope or near syncope (syncope group, n = 22) was compared with that of a control group of patients (n = 32) with clinically documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias were inducible in both groups and neither group received antiarrhythmic medications. All ICDs had stored electrograms or RR intervals. Clinical variables were similar between groups except that congestive cardiac failure was more common in the syncope group.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis of the time to first appropriate ICD therapy for syncope and control groups produced overlapping curves (p = 0.9), with 57 ± 11% and 50 ± 9%, respectively, receiving ICD therapy by one year. In both groups, the induced arrhythmia was significantly faster than spontaneous arrhythmias, but the cycle lengths of induced and spontaneous arrhythmias were positively correlated (R = 0.6, p < 0.0001). During follow-up, three cardiac transplantations and seven deaths occurred in the syncope group, and two transplantations and five deaths occurred in the control group (36-month survival without transplant 52 ± 11% and 83 ± 7%, respectively, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease and inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias, spontaneous sustained ventricular arrhythmias occur commonly and at a similar rate to patients with documented sustained VT. Thus, electrophysiologic testing in unexplained syncope can identify those at risk of potentially life-threatening tachyarrhythmias, and aggressive treatment of these patients is warranted.     

Impaired detection of ventricular tachyarrhythmias by a rate-smoothing algorithm in dual-chamber implantable defibrillators: intradevice interactions

INTRODUCTION: Rate smoothing is an algorithm initially designed to prevent rapid changes in pacemaker rates. In this study, we sought to determine the potential of the rate-smoothing mechanism in preventing detection of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical testing of rate smoothing was performed at the time of defibrillator arrhythmia induction in 16 patients with implantable defibrillators during 65 episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. We also performed simulator-based testing to assess detection of ventricular tachycardia between 170 and 220 beats/min with systematic sequential change of rate-smoothing percent, AV delay, and maximal rate. During clinical testing of 54 ventricular fibrillation/polymorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes, there were no cases of nondetection and 3 episodes (5%) of minimally delayed detection. Of 10 monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmias, 6 had either delayed (2 cases) or absent (4 cases) detection. During simulator testing, complex interrelationships were demonstrated in AV delay, upper rate, and rate-smoothing percent in determining the severity of the effect on detection. Generally, long AV delay, higher upper rate, and smaller (more aggressive) rate smoothing were associated with increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia underdetection. Importantly, use of parameters that impaired detection was always accompanied by a programmer warning message. CONCLUSION: Rate smoothing may result in delay or failure of ventricular tachycardia detection. It is important to consider warning messages when programming rate smoothing and to test for appropriate detection when rate smoothing is used despite warning messages.     

Experience with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in elderly patients

AIMS: Concern exists about the benefit of implantable defibrillatortherapy in elderly patients. We assessed the utility of implantabledefibrillator therapy and its effect on mortality in patients70 years and older and compared results in this group to thosein younger patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two out of 200 consecutive patients (16%) were 70 yearsor older at the time of implantation of a defibrillator. Whencomparing elderly to younger patients no significant differenceswere noted with respect to presenting arrhythmia, left ventricularejection fraction or presence of an old myocardial infarction.Elderly patients had a higher prevalence of ischaemic heartdisease, while in the younger group more patients had idiopathicventricular tachycardia. Cumulative survival curves (Kaplan-Meiermethod) for all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death and non-suddencardiac death were constructed for elderly and younger patients.No significant differences for cumulative survival from all-causemortality (75 vs 74%), sudden cardiac death (0 vs 4%) and non-suddencardiac death (97 vs 93%) were found. The incidence of appropriateshocks during follow-up was comparable (65 vs 72%). CONCLUSION: Implantable defibrillator therapy was effective in preventingsudden cardiac death in the elderly. Total mortality was similarto younger patients at a follow-up of 19±14 and 25±19months, respectively. Age itself should be no contraindicationto implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.     

Survival of antiarrhythmic or implantable cardioverter defibrillator treated patients with varying degrees of left ventricular dysfunction who survived malignant ventricular arrhythmias

INTRODUCTION: The relative effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) varies with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, once an ICD or AAD treatment strategy is chosen, the degree to which the LVEF influences survival is unknown. This article addresses that question. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using patient data from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, the impact of LVEF on prognosis of patients who were treated with either an ICD or AAD was assessed. Survival within each quintile of LVEF was estimated by the method of Kaplan-Meier for patients treated with either the ICD or AADs. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the prognostic value of LVEF for estimating survival after adjustment for other baseline covariates among all patients in the subgroups treated by ICD or AAD. In the highest two quintiles of LVEF, survival was comparable in AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients. In the AAD-treated patients, higher LVEF was significantly and independently associated with survival free of all-cause mortality and arrhythmic death. In the ICD-treated patients, however, the statistical significance of the association was lost and only a trend toward greater survival was present. Death due to congestive heart failure remained independently and significantly associated with survival in both AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with AADs but not patients treated with ICDs, survival is strongly associated with LVEF. The absence of a statistically significant association in the ICD patients is likely related to the effectiveness of the ICD in treating malignant ventricular arrhythmias, but a chance lack of association cannot be excluded.