Absence of late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in ventricular fibrillation and nonischemic cardiomyopathy

Introduction

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)‐identified late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), representing regional fibrosis, is often used to predict ventricular arrhythmia risk in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). However, LGE is more closely correlated with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) than ventricular fibrillation (VF). We characterized CMR findings of ventricular LGE in VF survivors.

Methods

We examined consecutively resuscitated VF survivors undergoing contrast‐enhanced 1.5T CMR between 9/2007 and 7/2016. We excluded coronary artery disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, amyloid, sarcoid, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and channelopathy. Preexisting implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) was a CMR contraindication. VF patients were divided into three groups: (1) NICM, (2) left ventricular (LV) dilatation with normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and (3) normal LV size and LVEF. Two groups of NICM patients with and without SMVT were examined for comparison.

Results

We analyzed 87 VF patients, and found that LGE was seen in 8/22 (36%) with NICM (LVEF 38 ± 11%, LV end‐diastolic volume index [LVEDVI] 134 ± 68 mL/BSA), 11/40 (28%) with LV dilatation and normal LVEF (LVEDVI 103 ± 17 mL/BSA), 4/25 (16%) with normal LV size and LVEF. Incidence of LGE in NICM patients without prior ventricular tachycardia/VF (LVEF 36 ± 12%, LVEDVI 141 ± 46 mL/body surface area [BSA]) was 117/277 and was not lower than those with VF and NICM (42% vs 36%; P = 0.59). By contrast, 22/37 NICM patients with SMVT (LVEF 42 ± 11%, LVEDVI 123 ± 48 mL/BSA) were LGE‐positive (59% NICM‐SMVT vs 36% NICM‐VF; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Most VF survivors with a diagnosis of NICM did not have LGE on CMR and would not have met primary prevention ICD criteria based on LVEF. Absence of LGE may not portend a benign prognosis in NICM. Novel strategies for determining SCD risk in this cohort are required.

     

Safety and effectiveness of primary prevention cardioverter defibrillators in octogenarians

Background: Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce the rate of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular systolic function. It is unclear if this benefit extends to the very elderly patient population. Methods: Patients who underwent initial ICD implantation at age 80 or older between January 1995 and April 2010 for primary SCD prevention were identified. Clinical data were collected from the medical record, including periprocedural complications, device type, and therapies delivered. Results: Three‐hundred eighty patients were identified; 84 patients met eligibility criteria. The mean age was 82.68 years; mean follow‐up was 34 months. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 28.1%. Mortality during follow‐up was 17.9%. One‐ and 5‐year survival estimates were 100% and 60%, respectively. Periprocedural complications occurred in 9.4% of patients; serious complications occurred in 4.8% with no periprocedural deaths. Device therapies occurred in 11.9% (n = 10) of patients (9.5% appropriate, n = 8; 2.4% inappropriate, n = 2). Cardiac resynchronization therapy‐defibrillator (CRT‐D) implantation was associated with prolonged median survival and decreased risk of death (hazard ratio 0.212; 95% confidence interval 0.048?.942, P = 0.042) compared to ICD alone. Conclusions: Implantation of primary prevention ICDs in patients 80 years of age or older was associated with a low risk of serious complications and a 5‐year survival estimate of 60%. Inappropriate therapies after implantation were uncommon. CRT‐D implantation was associated with a decreased risk of death compared to ICD alone. These data suggest that, in selected patients in this age group, ICD implantation is safe and effective. (PACE 2011; 34:900–906)     

Characteristics and relevance of clustering ventricular arrhythmias in defibrillator recipients

INTRODUCTION: Studies of recurrent ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) have been limited to "electrical storms," where recurrent arrhythmias necessitate repeated external cardioversions or defibrillations. Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) may also suffer frequently recurrent arrhythmias. The aim of this study was to analyze the temporal pattern and the clinical relevance of clustering ventricular arrhythmias in ICD recipients. METHODS: The incidence and the type of arrhythmias were determined by reviewing stored electrograms. VT/VF clusters were defined as the occurrence of three or more adequate and successful ICD interventions within 2 weeks. Two hundred and fourteen consecutive ICD recipients were followed during an average of 3.3 +/- 2.2 years (698 patient-years). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (24%) suffered 98 VT/VF clusters 21 +/- 22 months after ICD implantation, 93% of these clusters consisting of recurrent regular VT. Monomorphic VT as index event leading to ICD implantation was the only factor predicting VT/VF clusters. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the combined end-point of death or heart transplantation showed a 5-year event-free survival of 67% versus 87% in patients with and without clusters, respectively (P = 0.026). Adjusted hazard ratios for death or heart transplantation in the group with arrhythmia clusters was 3.5 (95% confidence interval 1.5-7.9 P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: VT/VF clusters are frequent late after ICD implantation particularly in patients who had VT as index-event. As arrhythmias and recurrent ICD interventions are responsible for an important morbidity, there is a possible role for a prophylactic intervention. Furthermore, VT/VF clusters are an independent marker of increased risk of death or need for heart transplantation.     

Cardiac defibrillation and resynchronization therapies: principles, therapies, and management implications

Patients with heart failure remain at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) and death due to heart failure progression, despite the incorporation of pharmacologic agents into clinical practice that have been shown to decrease mortality in clinical trials. Most patients experience SCD as their first dysrrhythmic event. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) effectively terminates ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) aborting SCD. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) complements pharmacologic therapy improving cardiac performance, quality of life, functional status, and exercise capacity in patients with systolic dysfunction despite optimal medical therapy who have a prolonged QRS duration; furthermore, it decreases mortality when compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Implantation of a combination CRT and ICD device, a CRT-D, reduces mortality by aborting SCD and providing the functional benefits of CRT. This article discusses the evolution of CRT-D therapy, the mechanism of operation of a CRT-D device, and nursing implications.     

The Effect of Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Recurrent Episodes After ICD Implantation and Review of Literature

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for at least 50% of the mortality of patients with ischemic heart failure. Ventricular arrhythmias are responsible for most cases of sudden cardiac death. There is some evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery may reduce the incidence of recurrent episodes of SCD by prevention of myocardial ischemia. To test the hypothesis that CABG surgery is effective in the prevention of SCD, we compared the recordings of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients who underwent ICD implantation alone (n = 64) or ICD implantation and concomitant CABG surgery respectively (n = 11). All patients had experienced out of hospital cardiac arrest. ICD recordings were obtained every 3 months and the number of recurrent episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) for each time period was noted. Three months foilowing ICD implantation patients in the surgically treated group had an average of one episode of VT per patient as compared to 2.7 episodes in the nonsurgical group. This difference was observed during the following months as well. However, at nlo time (up to 18 months of follow-up) this difference reached statistical significance. There were no deaths in the surgically treated group. Although we could not demonstrate a statistical significant difference between the two groups, there was a tendency in the surgically treated group to have less episodes of recurrent VT than in the medically treated group. We, therefore, conclude that survivors of SCD presenting with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo coronary artery bypass grafting to prevent myocardial ischemia as the triggering event for lethal ventricular arrhythmias.     

Primary Prevention Implantation of Cardioverter Defibrillator without Defibrillation Threshold Testing: 2-Year Follow-up

Background: Even though the intraoperative threshold testing of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator ( ICD ) may cause hemodynamic impairment or be unfeasible, it is still considered required standard practice at the time of implantation. We compared the outcome of ICD recipients who underwent defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) with that of patients in whom no testing was performed.
Methods: A total of 291 subjects with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy received transvenous ICDs between January 2000 and December 2004 in five Italian cardiology centers. In two centers, DFT was routinely performed in 137 patients (81% men; mean age 69 ± 9 years; mean ejection fraction 26 ± 4%) (DFT group), while three centers never performed DFT in 154 patients (90% men; mean age 69 ± 9 years; mean ejection fraction 27 ± 5%) (no-DFT group).
Results: We compared total mortality, total cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), and spontaneous episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (sustained ventricular tachycardia, VT, and ventricular fibrillation, VF) between these groups 2 years after implantation (median 23 months, 25th–75th percentile, 12–44 months). On comparing the DFT and no-DFT groups, we found an overall mortality rate of 20% versus 16%, cardiovascular mortality of 13% versus 10%, SCD of 3% versus 0.6%, VT incidence of 8% versus 10%, and VF incidence of 6% versus 4% (no significant difference in any comparison).
Conclusions: No significant differences in the incidence of clinical outcomes considered emerged between no-DFT and DFT groups. These results should be confirmed in larger prospective studies.     

A case of electromagnetic interference between HeartMate 3 LVAD and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to have a significant benefit in reducing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with systolic heart failure. Additionally, cardiac devices as a bridge to transplant or destination therapy are often used in patients with end‐stage systolic heart failure. As a result, most patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) also have an ICD. Here, we present an electromagnetic interference (EMI) between HeartMate 3 LVAD and ICD. This issue might be critical for both electrophysiologists and advanced heart failure cardiologists to understand prior to implantation of ICD/LVADs in these patients.     

Sustained polymorphic arrhythmias induced by programmed ventricular stimulation have prognostic value in patients receiving defibrillators

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who have monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) induced by programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Among a primary prevention population, the prognostic significance of induced polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias is unknown. METHODS: A total of 105 consecutive patients who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of SCD in the setting of ICM and non-sustained VT were retrospectively evaluated. Seventy-five patients (group I) had induction of monomorphic VT and 30 patients (group II) had a sustained ventricular arrhythmia other than monomorphic VT (ventricular flutter, ventricular fibrillation, and polymorphic VT) induced during PVS. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between group I and group II except for ejection fraction (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.0001) and QRS duration (123 milliseconds vs. 109 milliseconds, P = 0.04). Sixteen of 75 (21.3%) patients in group I and 6 of 30 (20%) patients in group II received appropriate ICD therapy (P = 0.88). Survival free from ICD therapy was similar between groups (P = 0.54). There was a trend toward increased all-cause mortality among patients in group I by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.08). However, when adjusted for age, EF, and QRS duration mortality was similar (P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in rates of appropriate ICD discharge or mortality between patients dichotomized by type of rhythm induced during PVS. These results suggest that patients in this population who have inducible VF or sustained polymorphic VT have similar rates of subsequent clinical ventricular tachyarrhythmias as those with inducible monomorphic VT.     

Ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac arrest in apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Two case reports

BACKGROUNDApical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is considered to have a benign prognosis in terms of cardiovascular mortality. This serial case report aimed to raise awareness of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in apical HCM. CASE SUMMARYHere we describe two rare cases of apical HCM that presented with documented VF and sudden cardiac collapse. These patients were previously not recommended for primary prevention using implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy based on current guidelines. However, both received ICD therapy for the secondary prevention of SCD.CONCLUSIONThese cases illustrate serious complications including VF and aborted sudden cardiac arrest in apical HCM patients who are initially not candidates for primary prevention using ICD implantation based on current guidelines.     

Electrocardiographic predictors of sudden cardiac death

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is widespread and the most serious of the cardiac diseases, accounting for over half of cardiovascular mortality in adults in the United States, and nearly 1 in 3 of these patients does not report symptoms of cardiac disease before the sudden death. Quantifying the left ventricular ejection fraction is currently the best way to risk-stratify patients for SCD and identify those who are most likely to benefit from the insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD). The strategy of systemically placing ICDs in patients at risk of SCD is expensive and leads to substantial psychological hardship. However, noninvasive electrocardiographic indices of depolarization and repolarization may better identify patients who are at an increased risk of SCD. Therefore, developing an approach to identify electrocardiographic changes associated with the highest risk of arrhythmic death could markedly improve patient selection for ICD therapy. This report describes electrocardiographic parameters that may be useful in identifying patients at risk of SCD. The state of the science currently suggests that it is unlikely that a single electrocardiographic parameter will predict SCD, but rather a risk stratification algorithm based on a combination of electrocardiographic parameters may yield the best result.     

Are Electrophysiological Studies Needed Prior to Defibrillator Implantation?

At present, patients with documented sustained VT or resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA) are treated with ICDs. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate if a routine electrophysiological study should be recommended prior to ICD implantation. In 462 patients referred for ICD implantation because of supposedly documented VT (n = 223) or CA (n = 239), electrophysiological study was routinely performed. In 48% of the patients with CA, sustained VT or VF was inducible. Electrophysiological study suggested conduction abnormalities (n = 11) or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (n = 3) in conjunction with severely impaired left ventricular function to have been the most likely cause of CA in 14 (5.9%) of 239 patients. Likewise, sustained VT was only inducible in 48% of patients with supposedly documented VT. Of these inducible VTs, nine were diagnosed as right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia or as bundle branch reentry tachycardia. Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias judged to represent the clinical event were the only inducible arrhythmia in 35 (16%) patients (AV nodal reentrant tachycardia [n = 7], AV reentry tachycardia [n = 4], atrial flutter [n = 19], and atrial tachycardia [n = 5]). Based on findings from the electrophysiological study, ICD implantation was withheld in 14 (5.9%) of 239 patients with CA and in 44 (19.7%) of 223 patients with supposedly documented VT. During electrophysiological study, VT or VF was only reproducible in about 50% of patients with supposedly documented VT or CA. Electrophysiological study revealed other, potentially curable causes for CA or supposedly documented VT in 12.6% (58/462) of all patients, indicating that ICD implantation can potentially be avoided or at least postponed in some of these patients. Based on these retrospective data, routine electrophysiological study prior to ICD implantation seems to be advisable.     

The Role of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Non VT/VF Sudden Deaths

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been an impressive success in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD). Electrocardiographic documentation of SCD in ICD patients has been rare, but usually arrhythmias other than ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF; asystole and electromechanical dissociation [EMD]) have been implicated. This raises the question whether backup bradycardia pacing can prevent deaths due to asystole and EMD in such patients. We studied the outcome of 88 patients with permanent bradycardia pacemakers and compared them to 500 consecutive nonpacemaker patient controls, sustaining out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and undergoing resuscitation by paramedics. Mean age of the pacemaker patients was 73.5 ± 10.3 years and 64% males, compared to mean age of 68.2 ± 6.7 years and 67% males in the control group. Overall success of resuscitation and survival rates were similar. When the documented rhythm was VT/VF or asystole there were no differences in resuscitation or survival rates for the pacemaker or nonpacemaker patients. However, resuscitation rate was significantly higher in pacemaker patients than nonpacemaker patients with EMD: 47% versus 20% ( P < 0.03). For EMD, survival rate for the pacemaker patients was 13% compared to 5% in the nonpacemaker patients, but this difference was not statistically significant. Backup bradycardia pacing in future generation devices may improve the outcome of non VT/VF sudden cardiac death in at least some of the ICD recipients.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major healthcare problem worldwide. The majority of SCD events occur in patients with clinically recognized heart disease and most episodes result from ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy prevents SCD in specific patient populations. Significant progress in the design and technology has been made since the Food and Drug Administration first approved the ICD in 1985. First-generation ICDs were large, were implanted in the abdomen, required a thoracotomy for placing epicardial defibrillation patches, and were nonprogrammable. Contemporary ICDs have been substantially downsized, are implanted via a transvenous approach, and are multiprogrammable. Device implantation has been simplified to be similar to that of a permanent pacemaker. In addition to treating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, ICDs now treat bradyarrhythmias, atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure. The purpose of this article is to describe the evidence supporting the use of ICD therapy and to explain the current devices used in clinical practice.     

Value of Heart Rate Variability to Predict Ventricular Arrhythmias in Recipients of Prophylactic Defibrillators with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

GRIMM, W., et al. : Value of Heart Rate Variability to Predict Ventricular Arrhythmias in Recipients of Prophylactic Defibrillators with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. This study investigated the relation between heart rate variability (HRV) measured as standard deviation of normal to normal RR intervals (SDNN) on baseline 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) and subsequent appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions in 70 patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) in whom ICDs were implanted prophylactically in the presence of a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). During   43 ± 26   months of follow-up, 26 of 70 (37%) study patients with IDC received one or more appropriate ICD interventions for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) documented by electrograms stored in the ICD. Mean SDNN at ICD implant was   94 ± 33 ms   . No difference was found between patients with   (90 ± 25 ms)   versus without   (96 ± 37 ms)   appropriate ICD interventions for VT or VF during follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression analysis of baseline clinical characteristics including age, gender, LVEF, NYHA functional class, nonsustained VT on Holter, history of syncope, left bundle branch block, baseline medication and HRV revealed LVEF as the only significant predictor of arrhythmia. These findings do not support the use of HRV measured as SDNN on 24-hour ambulatory ECG to select patients with IDC for prophylactic ICD therapy. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:411–415)     

Efficacy of metoprolol and sotalol in the prevention of recurrences of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

ICDs provide protection against sudden cardiac death in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Nevertheless, most ICD recipients receive adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy to reduce the number of recurrent episodes and ICD discharges. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of metoprolol and d,l-sotalol in preventing VT/VF recurrences in patients with an ICD in a prospective, randomized trial. One hundred patients (83 men, 17 women; mean age 59 years, SD +/- 11 years) were randomized to receive metoprolol or sotalol after implantation of an ICD. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, sex, underlying cardiac disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA class assessment and clinical arrhythmia. The median follow-up was 728 days (25th percentile: 530 days, 75th percentile: 943 days) in the metoprolol group and 727 days (25th percentile: 472 days, 75th percentile: 1,223 days) in the sotalol group (P = 0.52). Thirty-three patients treated with metoprolol and 30 patients receiving sotalol had at least one episode during the follow-up. Event-free survival curves were generated for the two treatment arms using the Kaplan-Meier method and showed no significant difference (P = 0.68). Eight patients treated with metoprolol and six patients treated with sotalol died during follow-up. Total mortality was not significantly different between the two study groups (P = 0.43). Metoprolol is as efficacious as sotalol in preventing VT/VF recurrences in patients with an ICD.     

Antitachycardia pacing for spontaneous rapid ventricular tachycardia in patients with prophylactic cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

AIMS: Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) has not routinely been used in patients who received implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden death. This study investigated the efficacy of empirical ATP to terminate rapid ventricular tachycardia (VT) in heart failure patients with prophylactic ICD therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-three patients with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 22 +/- 7% (range: 9-35%) due to nonischemic or ischemic cardiomyopathy received prophylactic ICDs with empiric ATP. At least 2 ATP sequences with 6-pulse burst pacing trains at 81% of VT cycle length (CL) were programmed in one or two VT zones for CL below 335 +/- 23 ms and above 253 +/- 18 ms. Ventricular flutter and fibrillation (VF) with CL below 253 +/- 18 ms were treated in a separate VF zone with ICD shocks without preceding ATP attempts. During 38 +/- 27 months follow-up, 339 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurred in 36 of 93 study patients (39%). A total of 232 VT episodes, mean CL 293 +/- 22 ms, triggered ATP in 25 of 36 patients with ICD interventions (69%). ATP terminated 199 of 232 VT episodes (86%) with a mean CL of 294 +/- 23 ms in 23 of 25 patients (88%) who received ATP therapy. ATP failed to terminate or accelerated 33 of 232 VT episodes (14%) with a mean CL of 287 +/- 19 ms in 12 of 25 patients (48%) who received ATP therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Painfree termination of rapid VT with empirical ATP is common in heart failure patients with prophylactic ICD therapy. The occasional inability of empiric ATP to terminate rapid VT in almost 50% of patients who receive ATP for rapid VT warrants restrictive ICD programming with regard to the number of ATP attempts in order to avoid syncope before VT termination occurs.     

The Value of Electrophysiology Study and Prophylactic Implantation of Cardioverter Defibrillator in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Fifty-three consecutive patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and no history of sudden death underwent electrophysiology (EP) study. Sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 19 patients (35%). Patients with prior syncope or near syncope had a higher incidence of VT/VF inducibility. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was placed in 14 of the 19 patients. Of the remaining 5 patients with inducible VT/VF, three refused ICD implantation, while two underwent septal myectomy and VT/VF was no longer inducible afier the operation. None of the patients received antiarrhythmic drugs. During a mean follow-up period of 47 ± 31 (2–117) months, no events occurred in the 34 patients with negative EP study. Three events occurred among the 19 patients with inducible VT/VF. One patient died suddenly, one developed wide complex tachycardia which required resuscitation, and one patient received an appropriate ICD shock. In conclusion, sustained polymorphic VT/VF was inducible in about one-third of patients with HCM. Noninducibility of VT/VF appeared to predict a favorable prognosis. Although the overall event rate was low in patients with inducible VT/VF, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with multiple risk factors may be appropriate.     

Results of Delivered Therapy for VT or VF in Patients with Third-Generation Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) offer tiered therapy and can provide significant advantage in the management of patients with life-threatening arrhythmias. Three different types of ICDs were implanted in 21 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia presentation was VT(76%), VF(10%), or both (14%). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction for the group was 32.4 ± 7%. No surgical mortality occurred. Prior to discharge individual EPS determined the final programmed settings of the ICDs. During a mean follow-up of 13 ± 1.4 months (range 2–20) the overall patient survival was 85.7%. No sudden arrhythmic or cardiac death occurred. Twenty of 21 patients (95%) received therapy by their device. In 14 patients (67%) antitachycardia pacing (A TP) was programmed "on," 13 of which was self-adaptative autodecremental mode. There were 247 VT episodes, 231 of which were subjected to ATP with 97% success and 3% acceleration or failure. Low energy shocks reverted all other VT episodes. VF episodes were successfully reverted by a single shock (93%), two shocks (6%), or three shocks (1 %). We conclude that ATP therapy of VT is successful in the large majority of episodes with rare failures, and that VF episodes are generally terminated by a single ICD shock.     

Statin therapy significantly reduces risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

A few observational studies have shown the protective effect of statins on preventing ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF). However, the disparate study results prompt further exploration of this concept. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether statin therapy is associated with a decrease in the incidence or recurrence of VT/VF in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).The MEDLINE(?) and Cochrane databases were searched from 1980 to July 2009 for studies examining the effect of statins on VT/VF in recipients of ICDs. We retrieved all prospective cohort studies that examined this association. The endpoint was defined as appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.Seven prospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria with a total of 2278 patients with a mean follow-up of 19.7 months. Pooled analysis of the eligible studies revealed that statin therapy was associated with a 45% reduction in the risk of developing VT/VF in recepients of ICDs [pooled odds ratio (pOR): 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.90; heterogeneity I(2) = 81%, P = 0.02]. In a subgroup analysis, the magnitude of the risk reduction in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy was 54% (pOR: 0.46, P = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis including studies with higher methodological qualities alone showed a significant protective effect (pOR: 0.48, P = 0.01). There was no evidence of publication bias in the analysis.Our meta-analysis suggests an association between the use of statin and a reduction in the VT/VF occurrence in recipients of ICDs, mainly in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.     

Sudden Death Mortality in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients

Implanfable Cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is not absolute and our experience was reviewed to determine the frequency and nature of SCO in this population. The incidence and cause of mortality in 56 consecutive patients, who underwent ICD implantation beginning May 1982 with follow-up through May 19, 1990 were analyzed. Twenty-one patients died, 33% of the mortality was due to SCD, and 52% of deaths may be considered arrhythmic. The cumulative 1, 3, and 5 year SCD survivals were 93%, 89%, and 75%. All seven patients dying of SCD presented initially with SCD, all received previous shocks prior to SCD, and two of the seven patients had devices that were probably inactive at the time of death. We conclude that ICDs reduce but by no means eliminate arrhythmic death, particularly in those at highest risk for SCD. Arrhythmic death remained the most common cause of death in this population.