安置埋藏式心脏复律除颤器术后电风暴的治疗体会

目的总结埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)电风暴(ES)的诱发因素、临床处理和预后。方法电风暴(ES)定义为24h内簇发3次或3次以上需经ICD干预的VT/VF事件。7名患者植入ICD后发生电风暴8次。诱发因素为低钾血症3次、心力衰竭2次、上呼吸道感染、心肌缺血和紧张恐惧各1次等。结果均祛除诱因,加强药物治疗,其中1例加行室性心动过速的射频消融,另1例加行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。8次ICD风暴均全部终止。结论通过纠正诱因,使用抗心律失常药物,调整ICD设置,必要时行射频消融术或冠脉血运重建,能有效地终止ES。     

安置埋藏式心脏复律除颤器术后电风暴的治疗体会

目的总结埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)电风暴(ES)的诱发因素、临床处理和预后。方法电风暴(ES)定义为24h内簇发3次或3次以上需经ICD干预的VT/VF事件。7名患者植入ICD后发生电风暴8次。诱发因素为低钾血症3次、心力衰竭2次、上呼吸道感染、心肌缺血和紧张恐惧各1次等。结果均祛除诱因,加强药物治疗,其中1例加行室性心动过速的射频消融,另1例加行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。8次ICD风暴均全部终止。结论通过纠正诱因,使用抗心律失常药物,调整ICD设置,必要时行射频消融术或冠脉血运重建,能有效地终止ES。     

急性冠状动脉综合征心室电风暴三例

3例急性冠状动脉综合征合并心室电风暴,均为中老年患者,发作心室电风暴前后均证实存在严重的心肌梗死及不稳定型心绞痛,反复发作室性心动过速及心室颤动,例1,2发生在阿托品静脉推注后,其中例1单纯使用胺碘酮及电击复律/除颤,效果不佳,死亡;例2在上述基础上联用β受体阻滞剂美托洛尔,患者获救;例3在临时起搏器的支持下,电击除颤/复律、胺碘酮及美托洛尔联用,最终获救。提示:β受体阻断剂联合应用胺碘酮对终止急性心肌缺血/梗死合并心室电风暴是有效和安全的。     

胺碘酮联合盐酸艾司洛尔救治心室电风暴的临床分析简

目的 探讨胺碘酮联合盐酸艾司洛尔治疗心室电风暴的疗效,总结治疗经验.方法 回顾性分析绍兴市人民医院近5年来心室电风暴（VES）患者的临床资料,入选患者均符合心室电风暴诊断标准,心室电风暴定义为24 h内自发≥2次的伴血流动力学不稳定的室性心动过速和（或）心室颤动,间隔窦性心律,通常需要电转复和电除颤紧急治疗的临床综合征.所有患者均予以电击转复或除颤,患者均应用胺碘酮抗心律失常,胺碘酮无效者加用盐酸艾司洛尔.结果 符合条件的患者共15例,其中冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病7例,扩张型心肌病3例,Brugada综合征1例,急性心肌炎1例,乌头碱中毒1例,特发性室性心动过速2例.所有患者均予以电击转复或除颤,平均电击4.5次.15例患者中5例经应用胺碘酮等治疗,心室电风暴得以控制,胺碘酮有效率33.3％.10例应用胺碘酮无效的患者,静脉应用盐酸艾司洛尔尚有7例有效,盐酸艾司洛尔对于胺碘酮无效的患者仍有70％的有效率.3例应用上述所有治疗措施无效,当天死亡.共抢救成功12例（80％）,死亡3例.存活的12例患者继续口服胺碘酮及美托洛尔维持治疗,其中3例患者植入植入型自动心律转复除颤器（ICD）.所有患者随访半年,猝死1例,其余11例未再复发心室电风暴.结论 胺碘酮联合盐酸艾司洛尔控制心室电风暴疗效显著,盐酸艾司洛尔值得进一步的探讨和应用.     

植入埋藏式心脏转复除颤器的临床应用与随访

目的报道13例埋藏式心脏转复除颤器(implantable cardioverter defibrillator,ICD)的临床应用与随访结果。方法对置入10例单腔ICD及3例双腔ICD患者进行电话询问和门诊随访,通过心电图、动态心电图及ICD存储的资料,对患者病情和ICD工作情况进行分析。结果 13例患者共发作持续性室性心动过速/心室颤动(ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation,VT/VF)38次(持续性VT 36次,VF 2次),其中37次治疗成功,1次失败。非持续性VT 121次,发作均自行停止。36次持续性VT中33次经抗心动过速起搏(antitachycardia pacing,ATP)终止,2次经低能量复律(CV)终止,1次VT治疗过程中加速为VF,由高能量除颤(DF)终止。1例共2次阵发性心房颤动心室率超过设置的VT频率,ICD发生误识别,给予ATP治疗。1例术后3个月出现心律失常"电风暴"。共有3例术后因VT发作频繁而服用胺碘酮和(或)美托洛尔,并根据心律失常发作情况调整用药剂量。结论 ICD植入后应加强随访,及时调整工作参数,同时给予患者心理治疗、对提高ICD的治疗效果非常重要。     

经导管射频消融心律转复除颤器植入后电风暴

目的报道3例心律转复除颤器（ICD）植入后抗心律失常药物治疗无效的室性心律失常电风暴患者经导管射频消融的结果。方法2名男性与1名女性患者,年龄为75、55、37岁,分别患有陈旧性前壁心肌梗死、致心律失常性右心室心肌病、左心室心肌病。均在ICD植入后发生抗心律失常药物治疗无效的电风暴。应用Carto电解剖标测系统引导盐水灌注射频导管标测和消融室性心动过速（VT）。对可标测VT（持续性、血流动力学稳定）行激动和拖带标测;对不可标测VT,则在基质标测的基础上行起搏标测和／或短时间的拖带标测。结果3例患者中共诱发出5种形态的VT,4种血流动力学较稳定VT和1种血流动力学不稳定VT。成功消融了所有形态的VT,抑制了电风暴的急性发作。消融后随访的6、19和36个月中,仅1例患者出现1次ICD放电。结论在电解剖标测的基础上,应用盐水灌注射频导管消融ICD植入后抗心律失常药物治疗无效的电风暴有很好的疗效。     

再负荷胺碘酮治疗复发性、持续性室性心动过速的临床疗效及安全性观察

目的评价再负荷胺碘酮治疗复发性、持续性室性心动过速的临床疗效及安全性。 方法12例初次负荷量胺碘酮治疗后正在口服维持量或停药不超过3个月的复发性、持续性室性心动过速(VT)和(或)心室颤动(VF)患者,男11例,女1例,平均60.75±4.58岁。分别给予静脉并口服胺碘酮(10例),单用口服胺碘酮800mg/d(2例)再负荷治疗。 结果12例复发性持续性VT和(或)VF均得到有效控制,未见明显副作用。再负荷胺碘酮治疗获满意疗效所需剂量约为初次负荷剂量的60%。 结论再负荷胺碘酮治疗复发性、持续性VT有良好的临床疗效及安全性。     

静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗心脏瓣膜置换术后阵发性心房颤动

选择瓣膜置换术后心房颤动(简称房颤)患者113例为研究对象,分为胺碘酮治疗组(n=62)和非胺碘酮治疗组(n=51),胺碘酮治疗组给予胺碘酮150mg静脉推注后以600μg/min持续静脉泵入,同时开始给予口服胺碘酮0.23次/日,7天后改为0.22次/日,7天后改为0.21次/日维持。非胺碘酮治疗组则给予洋地黄类或短效β受体阻滞剂治疗。胺碘酮治疗组对术后房颤的转复和窦性心律维持率均高于非胺碘酮治疗组(P<0.001)。结论:静脉及口服胺碘酮重叠应用治疗心脏瓣膜置换术后房颤可提高房颤的转复率,减少术后复发率。     

射频消融治疗植入型心律转复除颤器术后电风暴疗效分析

目的:探讨射频消融治疗植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者术后电风暴的有效性。方法:回顾性纳入2010年1月1日—2019年12月31日就诊于大连医科大学附属第一医院行ICD或心脏再同步化治疗-除颤器(CRT-D)术后电风暴行射频消融治疗的患者。收集研究对象的年龄、性别、基础心脏病、心脏超声指标和B型利钠肽(BNP)等临床资料。出院后定期随访,随访一级终点为电风暴复发,二级终点为心脏性猝死和全因死亡。K-M曲线评估射频消融术后电风暴复发情况;Cox回归计算射频消融术后电风暴复发相关危险因素。结果:本研究共纳入13例患者(男11例,女2例),年龄(60.53±10.63)岁。13例患者共进行19次标测与消融,单纯行心内膜标测患者11例,心内膜结合心外膜标测患者2例。术中消融所有室性心动过速者共11例,消融临床室性心动过速但能诱发非持续性室性心动过速者2例,术后仍能诱发临床室性心动过速1例,消融即刻完全成功率为84.62%,部分成功率为15.38%,失败率为7.69%。13例患者消融后平均随访(30.29±19.07)个月,末次导管消融后远期完全成功率、部分成功率及失败率分别为38.46%(5/13)、15.38%(2/13)及46.15%(6/13)。随访至2020年7月31日,有2例患者因心室颤动电风暴死亡,基础病因分别为缺血性心肌病和扩张型心肌病。亚组比较扩张型心肌病组和非扩张型心肌病组,两组在消融成功率上无显著差异(P=0.959)。Cox回归发现年龄、BNP、左室射血分数、左室舒张末期内径、右室舒张末期内径、心功能分级均与射频消融术后电风暴复发无关。结论:射频消融能够显著减少ICD术后电风暴发生。     

电风暴治疗的循证研究进展

电风暴是因心室电活动极度不稳定而诱发的严重恶性心律失常,常见诱因为器质性疾病、植入ICD、心力衰竭恶化、电解质紊乱、抗心律失常药物等。抢救药物强调了β受体阻滞剂的重要作用,与胺碘酮联用则最有效。非急性期植入ICD,并及时调整参数和使用β受体阻滞剂等药物以减少ICD后电风暴的发生。对于治疗效果不佳者,可尝试射频消融、交感神经阻滞术或心理治疗。     

美托洛尔缓释片对阵发性心房颤动射频消融术后早期复发的影响

目的 探究美托洛尔缓释片对阵发性心房颤动(PAF)射频消融术后早期复发的影响。 方法 收集2017年10月至2019年5月于济宁市第一人民医院心内科收治的PAF患者100例，采用随机数字表法分为试药组（n = 48）和对照组(n = 52)。两组均行射频消融术治疗，术后对照组采用常规胺碘酮治疗，试药组联合美托洛尔缓释片治疗，比较两组患者血清炎性因子、心功能指标、不良反应及预后。两组疗程均为3个月。 结果 试药组早期复发率4%，对照组早期复发率为14%，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）；射频消融术后1个月及术后3个月两组C反应蛋白（CRP）、白介素（IL）-6、肿瘤坏死因子（TNF）-α、左房前后径（LAD）值呈下降趋势，左室射血分数（LVEF）值呈上升趋势，且试药组与对照组相比差异有显著统计学意义（P < 0.05, P < 0.01）；术前、术后1个月和术后3个月随访时采用简明健康调查表（SF-36）评估生活质量，对照组及试药组组内术后3个月躯体健康评分（PCS）和精神健康评分（MCS）显著改善，但组间的改善没有统计学差异。 结论 美托洛尔缓释片联合胺碘酮可降低阵发性房颤射频消融术后早期的复发率，效果优于单用胺碘酮。     

美托洛尔在治疗置入型心律转复除颤器术后电风暴中的应用

目的 探讨美托洛尔剂量调整在治疗置入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)术后电风暴(ES)中的作用.方法 回顾性分析119例ICD患者的临床随访资料,ES定义为24 h内出现3次或3次以上的室性快速性心律失常(VTA)导致ICD治疗或ICD监测到持续30 s以上的VTA,但未发放治疗.结果 在(27.5±21.2)个月的随访期内,有39例(32.8%)患者发生ES,平均年龄(52.0±13.1)岁.ES患者中共有9例死亡,存活的30例患者中,25例在ES急性期予去除诱因(5例)、优化ICD工作参数与调整抗心律失常药物(16例)和导管射频消融(4例)后,ES得以控制,另5例ES自行终止.慢性期除2例Brugada综合征患者单用奎尼丁治疗以外,余23例患者将美托洛尔口服剂量由(26.8±13.9)mg/d逐步上调至(88.9±53.5)mg/d后,ES均未再次发作,且VTA发生次数较剂量调整前显著减少[(1.9±1.7)次/月与(0.8±0.6)次/月,P=0.004].另16.7%(5/30)的患者美托洛尔日剂量需上调至平均(255.3±41.7)mg时,ES才得以控制.结论 在治疗ICD术后ES时,美托洛尔应个体化足量使用,约1/6的患者日剂量需要超过200mg.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the effectiveness of the metoprolol dosage adjustment on reducing the incidence of electrical-storm (ES) in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs).Methods Data from patients with ICD implantation between Jan, 2003 and Jun, 2006 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. ES was defined as either ≥ 3 times of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs)resulting in ICD therapy or VTAs lasting more than 30 s detected by ICD without any therapy within 24 hours. Results During a follow-up period of (27.5 ± 21.2)months, ES was recorded in 39 cases [34 males, average age (52. 0 ± 13. 1 )years] out of 119 patients (32. 8% ) and 9 patients died after ES. During the period of storm attack, ES was successfully controlled in 25/30 patients by various interventions,including predisposing factors corrected in 5 cases, ICD reprogramming and antiarrhythmic drugs therapy optimized in 16 cases (one received intravenous injection of metoprolol), and VTAs eliminated by catheter ablation in 4 cases. ES was spontaneously resolved in the remaining 5 cases. In the chronic phase, 2 patients with Brugada syndrome were treated with Quinidine mono-therapy while the dosage of metoprolol was adjusted in the remaining 23 patients and the dosage of metoprolol was increased gradually from (26. 8 ±13.9)mg/d to (88.9 ± 53.5 )mg/d without any adverse effects (9 patients received also oral amiodarone 200 mg/d). Post dosage adjustment, the total VTA episodes [( 1.9 ± 1.7 ) times/month vs. (0. 8 ± 0. 6)times/month, P = 0. 004], incidence of antitachycardia pacing therapies [(4. 2 ± 3. 8 ) runs/month vs.(2. 3 ± 2. 0) runs/month, P = 0. 003], as well as electrical cardioversion or defibrillation [( 1.1 ± 0. 9 )times/month vs. (0. 4 ± 0. 2)times/month, P = 0. 001] were significantly decreased. ES was not controlled until a extremely high dosage [225 -300(255. 3 ±41.7)mg/d] of metoprolol was reached in the remaining 5 patients. Conclusions Metoprolol use is essential and its dosage should be individualized in the majority of ICD recipients with ES. In approximately 1/6 patients, the dosage of metoprolol should be higher than 200mg/d.     

Inadäquate ICD-Therapien: was tun?

20-30% of ICD patients suffer from inappropriate ICD therapy due to misclassification of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) as ventricular tachycardia. Inappropriate ICD therapies are not only painful for patients, but also proarrhythmogenic and can reduce device longevity due to battery depletion. Therapy of inappropriate ICD episodes is a puzzle of optimized ICD programming, antiarrhythmic therapy and radiofrequency (RF) ablation. Single-chamber ICD detection algorithms are effective in reducing inappropriate ICD therapy particularly due to sinus tachycardia or atrial fibrillation. Dual-chamber ICD detection algorithms were developed to improve specificity of SVT discrimination. However, large prospective, controlled trials showing superiority of dualchamber over single-chamber devices are lacking. It appears that patients with slow ventricular tachycardias, being at high risk for inappropriate ICD therapy, might benefit from dual-chamber ICD therapy. Concerning pharmacological therapy of inappropriate ICD episodes, the OPTIC study recently showed superiority of class III antiarrhythmics (sotalol and amiodarone) over beta-blockers. RF ablation of cavotricuspid isthmus is of proven benefit in ICD patients with inappropriate episodes due to typical flutter and should also be considered in atrial tachycardia. If patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation despite optimized antiarrhythmic medication will benefit from trigger elimination or substrate modification by RF ablation has still to be proven. In patients with inappropriate ICD episodes and drug-refractory chronic permanent atrial fibrillation, AV node ablation can effectively eliminate inappropriate ICD therapy, however, at the price of potential ventricular asynchrony and progression of heart failure due to right ventricular pacing. Thus, upgrading to biventricular ICD therapy should be considered in these patients.     

药物治疗肺静脉和腔静脉电隔离术后阵发性心房颤动

目的 探讨阵发性心房颤动肺静脉和腔静脉电隔离术后早期复发患者药物治疗方法。方法 阵发性心房颤动患者32例，行肺静脉和腔静脉电隔离术后，均给予美托洛尔治疗，早期复发患者加用普罗帕酮，若仍不能控制心房颤动发作，则给予索他洛尔替代上述两药。结果 美托洛尔加普罗帕酮控制阵发性心房颤动的有效率54％。索他洛尔的有效率达83％。控制心房颤动总有效率92％，未发现严重不良反应。所用剂量小于常规剂量。结论 美托洛尔加小剂量的普罗帕酮，或单用小剂量索他洛尔可有效地控制阵发性心房颤动肺静脉和腔静脉电隔离术后早期复发患者的发作。     

室性心律失常的研究：创新铸就超越

室性心律失常危害身心健康,尤其是室性心动过速（室速）和心室颤动（室颤）更可直接导致心脏性猝死。21世纪的前10年,国内外在室性心律失常的机制和防治研究中均取得重要进展。本期杂志刊登一组文章,涉及医院内室颤的救治、室速和室颤的机制、药物治疗、射频消融治疗、植入型心律转复除颤器（ICD）的应用等内容。所刊文章或许有诸多不足,并不完美,但锐意创新为其共同特点。     

Rescue ablation of electrical storm in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: a potential-guided ablation approach by modifying substrate of intractable, unmappable ventricular tachycardias.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a substrate-modifying, primarily potential-guided catheter ablation approach as a bailout therapy in patients with complex myocardial infarction and electrical storms due to ventricular tachycardias (VTs). BACKGROUND: Management of electrical storm is a domain of medical treatment. A definite trigger or delineated scar has been characterized as a requirement for substrate-orientated ablation of intractable unmappable ventricular tachyarrhythmias but can be absent, as shown in the presented cases. METHODS: Five patients who presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe reduced left ventricular ejection fraction also suffered from multiple types of unstable VTs that deteriorated into drug-refractory electrical storm. Patients had 96 to 580 VT episodes requiring therapy with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and received 3 to 310 shock deliveries prior to ablation. Treatment with beta-blockers, amiodarone, class IB antiarrhythmic drugs, deep sedation, and overdrive pacing and/or cardioversion of incessant VTs failed to stabilize the electrical storm but enabled left ventricular electroanatomic voltage mapping. A simplified substrate modification was performed by ablation of delayed fractionated potentials in areas identified by pace mapping, matching three to eight documented types of VTs per patient in complex scar areas. RESULTS: All patients could be stabilized after ablation. During 12 to 30 months of follow-up, three patients remained free of any VT episode requiring ICD treatment, and two patients had <1 VT episode per month. CONCLUSIONS: The cases presented demonstrate that rescue VT ablation of drug-refractory electrical storm is possible by a substrate-orientated ablation approach even in patients with complex chronic infarction and various VTs.     

Preliminary results of the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH)

Sodium channel Mockers and class III antiarrhythmic compounds, as well as β blockers, have been used in preventing recurrences of sudden cardiac death. In recent years, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been used increasingly, but no data from randomized trials comparing antiarrhythmic drug and ICD therapy have been reported in this setting. In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, randomized trial, was initiated to compare metoprolol, amiodarone, propafenone, and ICD implantation in patients surviving sudden cardiac death due to documented ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. The details of the study design and preliminary results are presented herein. The primary endpoint of the study is total mortality. The data reviewed in March 1992, representing a mean follow-up period of 11 months, indicated no significant differences among patients randomized to metoprolol, amiodarone, and ICDs. However, there was a significantly higher total mortality and cardiac arrest recurrence in patients randomized to propafenone compared with those randomized to the ICD treatment limb. The study continues with the deletion of the propafenone treatment limb.     

Management of cardiomyopathy resulting from incessant supraventricular tachycardia in infants and children

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation is considered to be the treatment of choice in patients with ventricular dysfunction related to incessant supraventricular tachycardia. However, reservations regarding its use in infants and children prompted us to try alternative strategies for this group. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight children (age range: 1 day to 10 years) were diagnosed to have tachycardia-related ventricular dysfunction in the past 6 years. They presented with symptoms of palpitation, dyspnea and/or generalized swelling over the body of 3 months to 2 years'duration. The cardiothoracic ratio at presentation was 64% (52%-70%) and ejection fraction was 22.2% (15%-45%). In 7 patients tachycardia was diagnosed to be ectopic atrial and in 1 it was permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia. Six of these children were managed with intravenous/oral amiodarone in combination with digoxin (3) and/or propranolol (2). In one child addition of amiodarone to digoxin and propranolol led to polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and amiodarone was withdrawn. Only one child underwent radiofrequency ablation as the first choice because regular follow-up was not possible due to logistic reasons. Sinus rhythm with normalization of ventricular function was achieved in 6 of the 7 children treated medically. One child continued to have frequent episodes of tachycardia and underwent successful radiofrequency ablation of a high right atrial ectopic focus. Two out of the 6 patients on amiodarone could be managed with only digoxin and propranolol after their ventricular function had returned to normal. A third patient relapsed on stopping amiodarone and underwent successful radiofrequency ablation of a left atrial ectopic tachycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term amiodarone in combination with digoxin/propranolol is a safe and effective treatment strategy for infants/children with tachycardiomyopathy. Control of tachycardia is achieved in the majority, leading to recovery of ventricular function. This approach may avoid unnecessary ablations in children or at least postpone it till the procedure would be safer.     

Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy

Abstract Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a major cause of sudden cardiac death and ventricular tachyarrhythmias in young, apparently healthy individuals and athletes. Myocardial atrophy with subsequent fibrofatty replacement predominantly affects right ventricular myocardium and results in global and regional dysfunction as well as areas of slow conduction and dispersion of refractoriness which are prerequisites for reentrant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.Patients affected with ARVC should be excluded from competitive sports and vigorous training. To provide optimal treatment, a detailed diagnostic evaluation and risk stratification are mandatory. Tailored treatment strategies aim at the suppression or effective termination of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias and prevention of sudden death by antiarrhythmic drug therapy, catheter ablation, or implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).Antiarrhythmic drugs may be used as a stand-alone treatment to suppress ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurrences in patients with ARVC and low risk of sudden death. Sotalol (preferred) or amiodarone in combination with -blockers showed the highest efficacy rates. In patients at higher risk, an ICD should be implanted and antiarrhythmic drugs be used only as an adjunct to prevent or suppress frequent VT recurrences and ICD discharges.Catheter ablation using conventional or electroanatomic mapping techniques yields good acute results for eliminating the targeted arrhythmia substrate. However, during the progressive long-term course of ARVC, VT recurrences from new arrhythmia foci are frequent and therefore limit the curative value of catheter ablation. In patients with frequent VT recurrences and ICD discharges, however, catheter ablation plays an important role as a palliative and adjunctive treatment option for arrhythmia suppression.ICD therapy has been increasingly used for secondary and also primary prevention of sudden death in patients with ARVC. In secondary prevention, the ICD has shown to improve the long-term prognosis of patients at high risk of sudden death by effective termination of life-threatening recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, adequate lead placement may be difficult and lead-related complications during long-term follow-up must be taken into account. The role of ICD therapy for primary prevention of sudden death in ARVC is not yet adequately defined.Ongoing international registries will provide important additional data to improve risk stratification and refine treatment algorithms in order to select the best individual treatment for arrhythmia suppression and prevention of sudden death in patients with ARVC.