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.     

肥厚型心肌病猝死预防:肥厚型心肌病患者除颤器置入

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), has recently proved to be a safe and effective therapeutic intervention in patients with HCM, both for the primary and secondary prevention of sudden death. Based on recent substantial experience, the ICD intervenes appropriately to termiante ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF), at a rate of 5.5%/year. ICD discharge rate is 4%/year in those patients implanted prophylactically due to one or more major risk markers, but often with considerable delays of up to 10 years before the device is required to intervene appropriately to terminate potentially letal ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Primary prevention of VT/VF occurs with similar frequency in high-risk patients having either 1,2 or ≥ 3 noninvasive risk markers, and about one-third of patients with appropriate device interventions had been implanted for only one risk factor. The ICD has proved reliable in HCM despite the extreme and complex phenotypes often present with massive degrees of left vcntricular hypertrophy, microvascular ischemia, diastolic dysfunction, or dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Failure to convert life-threatening ventrieular tachyarrhythmias to normal rhythm is extraordinarily rare. In conclusion, in high-risk HCM patients, ICDs perform in a highly effective fashion,frequently preventing sudden death by aborting primary life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. A single marker of high risk can be sufficient evidence to justify the recommendation for a prophylactic ICD in selected patients with HCM.     

室性心律失常的治疗进展

Ventricular arrhythmias(VA)include premature ventricular contractions(PVC),ventricular tachycardia(VT),ventricular flutter or defibrillation(VFL/VF).Although commonly related to structural heart disease,a significant percentage of VA are idiopathic(occurring in patients with otherwise normal hearts).Classic antiarrhythmic drugs(AADs)for VA have limited effectiveness,and pose the risk of life-threatening VT/VF.Very few AADs have been successful in the last few decades,due to safety concerns or limited benefits in comparison to existing therapy.Amiodarone has emerged as the leading antiarrhythmic therapy for termination and prevention of VA in different clinical settings because of its proven efficacy and safety.For VT/VF,implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD)appear to be the unique,yet unsatisfactory,solution.Indications for ICD have evolved considerably from initial implantation exclusively in patients who had survived one or more cardiac arrests and failed pharmacological therapy.Multipie clinical trials have established that ICD use results in improved survival compared with antiarrhythmic agents for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death(SCD).Large prospective,randomized,multicenter studies have also demonstrated that ICD therapy is effective for primary prevention of sudden death and improves total survival in selected patient populations who have not previously had a cardiac arrest or sustained VT.Catheter ablation is now an important option to control recurrent VT.The field has evolved rapidly and is a work in progress.Ablation is often a sole therapy of VT in patients without structural heart disease and is commonly combined with an ICD and/or antiarrhythmic therapy for scar-related VT associated with structural heart disense.     

Implanted defibrillators and primary prevention of sudden cardiac death: where are we today?

Implanted defibrillators have become a mainstream therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) from ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. A decade of studies has confirmed the superiority of ICDs over antiarrhythmic drug therapy in prolonging the life of patients with a prior history of sustained VT or VF. Furthermore, recent studies have examined the role of ICD therapy in the primary prophylaxis against sudden death in patients considered at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. These studies have revealed that in selected patients with the substrate of chronic coronary artery disease and a ventricular scar, ICDs lead to important relative and absolute reductions in mortality in such patients without a prior history of VT or VF. Clinicians caring for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe LV dysfunction, who are at a risk of sudden cardiac death, need to carefully consider this information when managing this patient population.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis

ICD Shocks in Cardiac Sarcoidosis . Background: An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is indicated for some patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) for prevention of sudden death. However, there are little data regarding the event rates of ICD therapies in these patients. We sought to identify the incidence and characteristics of ICD therapies in this patient population. Methods: We performed a cohort study of patients with ICDs at 3 institutions. Cases were those patients with CS and an ICD implanted for primary or secondary prevention of sudden death. Additionally, we included a comparison with historical controls of ICD therapy rates reported in clinical trials evaluating the ICD for primary and secondary prevention of sudden death. Results: Of the 112 CS subjects identified, 36 (32.1%) received appropriate therapies for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT) over a mean follow‐up period of 29.2 months. VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) occurred in 16 (14.2%) CS subjects. Inappropriate therapies occurred in 13 CS subjects (11.6%). Covariates associated with appropriate ICD therapies included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <55% (OR 6.52 [95% CI 2.43–17.5]), right ventricular dysfunction (OR 6.73 [95% CI 2.69–16.8]), and symptomatic heart failure (OR 4.33 [95% CI 1.86–10.1]). Conclusions: In our cohort of patients with CS and ICDs, almost one‐third receive appropriate therapies. This may be due to a myocardial inflammatory process leading to increased triggered activity and subsequent scarring leading to reentrant tachyarrhythmias. Adjusted predictors of ICD therapies in this population include left or right ventricular dysfunction. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 925‐929, September 2012)     

ICD-Therapie zur Sekundärprävention

Patients who survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmias are at considerable risk of recurrence of these events and ultimately death. The implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with previous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT) is considered secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most important trials on secondary prevention with an ICD. The results from a meta-analysis showed a relative-risk reduction of 28% in overall mortality. Compared with amiodarone, an ICD provided maximal benefit for those patients with an ejection fraction between 20% and 35%. The results of the ICD trial demonstrate that there is clear evidence for the effectiveness of an ICD in patients with unstable VT; however, for patients with stable VT the results are less clear. Data on older patients are scant, and whether the survival benefit observed in the middle aged and younger-old also extend to older elderly patients with a more limited life span is less clear. Therefore, as the population becomes older, it is important to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and the cost effectiveness of ICD implantation in this population. Guidelines are important and helpful to guide clinical decisions, but the indication for an ICD still remains an individual decision after evaluation of the risks and benefits for the individual patient. However, the patient needs to be involved, which emphasizes the importance of dialogue between the patient and physician.     

Implantable defibrillators and prevention of sudden death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people, including trained athletes. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), although initially designed as a treatment for older patients with coronary artery disease, has more recently proved to be a safe and effective therapeutic intervention in young patients with HCM, both for primary or secondary prevention of sudden death. The largest such report of >500 patients showed that the ICD intervened appropriately to abort ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) in 20% of patients over an average follow-up period of only 3.7 years, at a rate of about 4% per year in those patients implanted prophylactically, and often with considerable delays of up to 10 years. Extensive experience with high-risk HCM patients showed that appropriate device discharges for VT/VF occur with similar frequency in patients with 1, 2, or > or = 3 noninvasive risk markers. Despite the extreme morphology characteristic of HCM, often with massive degrees of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and/or LV outflow tract obstruction, ICDs performed in a highly effective fashion, with failure to convert life-threatening arrhythmias extraordinarily rare. In conclusion, in a large high-risk HCM cohort, ICD interventions for life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias were frequent and highly effective in restoring normal rhythm. An important proportion of ICD discharges occurred in primary prevention patients with only one risk factor. Therefore, a single marker of high risk may represent sufficient evidence to justify the recommendation for a prophylactic ICD in selected patients with HCM.     

Predictors of appropriate implantable defibrillator therapies in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) is an inherited cardiomyopathy characterized by ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. The risk factors for sudden death and indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in patients with ARVD are not well defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine which clinical and electrophysiologic variables best predict appropriate ICD therapies in patients with ARVD. Particular attention focused on whether the ICD was implanted for primary or second prevention. METHODS: We enrolled 67 patients (mean age 36 +/- 14 years) with definite or probable ARVD who had undergone ICD placement. Appropriate ICD therapies were recorded, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the event-free survival time between patients based upon the indication for ICD placement (primary vs secondary prevention), results of electrophysiologic testing, and whether the patient had probable or definite ARVD. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 4.4 +/- 2.9 years, 40 (73%) of 55 patients who met task force criteria for ARVD and 4 (33%) of 12 patients with probable ARVD had appropriate ICD therapies for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF; P = .027). Mean time to ICD therapy was 1.1 +/- 1.4 years. Eleven of 28 patients who received an ICD for primary prevention (39%) and 33 of 35 patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention (85%) experienced appropriate ICD therapies (P = .001). Electrophysiologic testing did not predict appropriate ICD interventions in patients who received an ICD for primary prevention. Fourteen patients (21%) received ICD therapy for life-threatening (VT/VF >240 bpm) arrhythmias. There was no difference in the incidence of life-threatening arrhythmias in the primary and secondary prevention groups (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Patients who meet task force criteria for ARVD are at high risk for sudden cardiac death and should undergo ICD placement for primary and secondary prevention, regardless of electrophysiologic testing results. Further research is needed to confirm that a low-risk subset of patients who may not require ICD placement can be identified.     

Risk Stratification and Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients with Heart Failure

For almost the past decade, recommendations for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have been based upon the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Current guidelines recommend an ICD for heart failure patients with LVEF ≤35% and NYHA functional class of II or III; however, because the majority of heart failure patients who qualify for ICD implantation based on these criteria will never have an event requiring ICD therapy over several years of follow-up, additional methods of risk stratification for sudden death are clearly needed. Additionally, most of the nearly 300,000 cardiac arrests that occur each year occur in patients without heart failure or significant left ventricular dysfunction. To improve the identification of patients at risk for sudden death, several criteria other than ejection fraction have been proposed and studied. Markers of autonomic tone, including heart rate turbulence and QT dynamicity, have shown some ability to predict total mortality but not arrhythmic events. Microvolt T-wave alternans testing was initially thought to be highly predictive of life-threatening arrhythmias, but prospective large sub-studies of the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT trials have failed to show a predictive value for T-wave alternans testing. Newer markers for risk are based upon the detection of myocardial fibrosis, which forms the substrate for re-entrant and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Markers of collagen turnover or quantification of myocardial scar by MRI may hold the best promise for identifying patients at highest risk for sudden cardiac death and may also identify patients at high risk but with an ejection fraction above 35%, who are not currently recommended for ICD implantation.     

Value of Holter monitoring in identifying risk for sustained ventricular arrhythmia recurrence on amiodarone

Seventy-four patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias had 22 +/- 3 hours of Holter monitoring before and after 11 +/- 6 days of amiodarone treatment. On control Holter recordings, 55 patients (group I) had frequent (more than 10 extrasystoles per hour) and/or complex (at least couplets) ventricular ectopic activity (VEA), and 19 patients (group II) had infrequent and simple VEA. A positive Holter monitor response to amiodarone was defined as a decrease in VEA by more than 85% and abolition of all complex VEA. In group I, 34 patients (62%) had a positive Holter monitor response. In group II, 16 patients (84%) had persistent, infrequent and simple VEA and 3 had frequent and/or complex VEA. During a mean follow-up of 13 +/- 12 months, 22 patients (30%) had ventricular tachycardia (VT) or sudden death. In group I, VT or sudden death occurred in 6 of 34 (18%) patients with a positive Holter monitor response and 11 of 21 (52%) with a negative Holter monitor response (p less than 0.01), and in group II, VT or sudden death occurred in 5 of 16 patients (31%) with persistent, infrequent and simple VEA. All episodes of VT or sudden death occurred after at least 2 weeks of amiodarone therapy (mean 5 +/- 6 months). The predictive accuracy of a positive Holter monitor response as an indicator for subsequent prevention of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death was 82% and for a negative Holter monitor response as an indicator of tachyarrhythmia or sudden death recurrence on therapy it was 52%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

The Midlands Trial of Empirical Amiodarone versus Electrophysiology-guided Interventions and Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators (MAVERIC): a multi-centre prospective randomised clinical trial on the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

AIMS: MAVERIC was a randomised clinical trial designed to test the possibility of prospectively identifying patients who would benefit most from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) by electrophysiology (EP) study in the context of secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) through comparing EP-guided interventions (anti-arrhythmic drugs, coronary revascularization, and ICD) against empirical amiodarone therapy. METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen survivors of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) or SCD were randomized to either treatment strategy, pre-stratified for haemodynamic status at index event, and followed up for a median of 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 106 amiodarone arm patients, 89 (84%) received the drug and 5 (5%) received an ICD after crossing over. Of the 108 EP arm patients, 31 (29%) received an ICD, 46 (43%) received anti-arrhythmic drugs only (mainly amiodarone or sotalol) and 18 (17%) received coronary revascularization but no ICD. No significant differences in survival or arrhythmia recurrence existed between the two treatment arms after 6 years. However, ICD recipients had a lower mortality than non-ICD recipients, regardless of allocated treatment (hazard ratio=0.54, p=0.0391). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective selection of patients to receive the ICD by EP study did not improve survival compared with empirical amiodarone therapy among survivors of VT, VF or SCD, whereas ICD implantation improved survival regardless of allocated treatment. On this basis, routine EP study has no role in the management of such patients, who should be offered empirical ICD therapy according to the results of other secondary prevention ICD trials.     

Obesity as a risk factor for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in MADIT II patients

Background: Obesity, as defined by body mass index ≥30 kg/m², has been shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. However, data on the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden death by BMI in patients after myocardial infarction with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
Methods : The risk of appropriate defibrillator therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) by BMI status was analyzed in 476 nondiabetic patients with left ventricular dysfunction who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II (MADIT II).
Results : Mean BMI was 27 ± 5 kg/m². Obese patients comprised 25% of the study population. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF were 39% in obese and 24% in nonobese patients, respectively (P = 0.014). In multivariate analysis, there was a significant 64% increase in the risk for appropriate ICD therapy among obese patients as compared with nonobese patients, which was attributed mainly to an 86% increase in the risk of appropriate ICD shocks (P = 0.006). Consistent with these results, the risk of the combined endpoint of appropriate VT/VF therapy or sudden cardiac death (SCD) was also significantly increased among obese patients (Hazard Ratio 1.59; P = 0.01).
Conclusions : Our findings suggest that in nondiabetic patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction, a BMI ≥30 kg/m² is an independent risk factor for ventricular tachyarrhythmias.     

Survival after cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) after resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or syncopal sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF) when treated with low dose amiodarone or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). BACKGROUND: Prospective data on clinical outcome in patients with HCM who survive a cardiac arrest are limited, but studies conducted before the widespread use of amiodarone and/or ICD therapy suggest that over a third die within seven years from sudden cardiac death or progressive heart failure. METHODS: Sixteen HCM patients with a history of VT/VF (nine male, age at VT/VF 19 +/- 8 years [range 10 to 36]) were studied. Syncopal sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation occurred during or immediately after exertion in eight patients and was the initial presentation in eight. One patient had disabling neurologic deficit after VT/VF. Before VT/VF, two patients had angina, four had syncope and six had a family history of premature sudden cardiac death. After VT/VF all patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II, three had nonsustained VT during ambulatory electrocardiography and 11 had an abnormal exercise blood pressure response. After VT/VF eight patients were treated with low dose amiodarone and six received an ICD. Prophylactic therapy was declined by two patients. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 6.1 +/- 4.0 years (range 0.5 to 14.5). Cumulative survival (death or ICD discharge) for the entire cohort was 59% at five years (95% confidence interval: 33% to 84%). Thirteen (81%) patients were alive at last follow-up. Two patients died suddenly while taking low dose amiodarone, and one died due to neurologic complications of his initial cardiac arrest. Three patients had one or more appropriate ICD discharges during follow-up; the times to first shock after ICD implantation were 23, 197 and 1,124 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients with HCM who survive an episode of VT/VF remain at risk for a recurrent event. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy appears to offer the best potential benefit regarding outcome.     

Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: Risk Stratification and Indications for Defibrillator Therapy

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a genetically determined disease which predisposes to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. The main goal of ARVC therapy is prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the most effective therapy for interruption of potentially lethal ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Despite its life-saving potential, ICD implantation is associated with a high rate of complications and significant impact on quality of life. Accurate risk stratification is needed to identify individuals who most benefit from the therapy. While there is general agreement that patients with a history of cardiac arrest or hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia are at high risk of SCD and needs an ICD, indications for primary prevention remain a matter of debate. The article reviews the available scientific evidence and guidelines that may help to stratify the arrhythmic risk of ARVC patients and guide ICD implantation. Other therapeutic strategies, either alternative or additional to ICD, will be also addressed.     

无痛治疗在植入型心律转复除颤器患者心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用

目的 随访植入型心律转复除颤器(ICD)患者,了解抗心动过速起搏(antitachycardia pacing,ATP)作为室性心动过速(VT)无痛治疗手段在心脏性猝死一级和二级预防中的应用.方法 对2005年1月至2009年6月符合ICD一级和二级预防标准并在我院植入ICD的患者进行随访.将ICD的诊断程序设置为VT...     

Arrhythmias in heart failure: current concepts of mechanisms and therapy

About one half of deaths in patients with heart failure are sudden, mostly due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) degenerating to ventricular fibrillation or immediate ventricular fibrillation. In severe heart failure, sudden cardiac death also may occur due to bradyarrhythmias. Other dysrhythmias complicating heart failure include atrial and ventricular extrasystoles, atrial fibrillation (AF), and sustained and nonsustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The exact mechanism of the increased vulnerability to arrhythmias is not known. Depending on the etiology of heart failure, different preconditions, including ischemia or structural alterations such as fibrosis or myocardial scarring, may be prominent. Reentrant mechanisms around scar tissue, afterdepolarizations, and triggered activity due to changes in calcium metabolism significantly contribute to arrhythmogenesis. Furthermore, alterations in potassium currents leading to action potential prolongation and an increase in dispersion of repolarization play a significant role. Treatment of arrhythmias is necessary either because patients are symptomatic or to reduce the risk for sudden cardiac death. The individual history, left ventricular function, electrophysiologic testing, and the signal-averaged ECG give useful information for identifying patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has evolved as a promising therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias. A potential role may exist for antiarrhythmic drugs, mainly amiodarone. There is growing evidence that patients with sustained VT or a history of resuscitation have the best outcome with ICD therapy regardless of the degree of heart failure. Many of these patients require additional antiarrhythmic therapy because of AF or nonsustained VTs that may activate the device. Catheter ablation or map-guided endocardial resection are additional options in selected patients but seldom represent the only therapeutic strategy.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in children

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) proved to be effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in adults. In children, the experience of ICD therapy is limited. This retrospective study was undertaken to review our experience with ICD implantation in children with special consideration of psychosocial impact of this therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen children (f:5, m:11, median age 12.2 years, range 4-15.9 years) received an ICD. Eleven patients had survived sudden cardiac death with documented ventricular fibrillation (VF) and five patients had sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) with hemodynamic significance. The underlying heart disease was congenital in 5, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 2, myocarditis in 2 and primary electrical in 7 patients. All leads were implanted transvenously. Mean follow up was 43.1 months (range 1-105 months). All patients are alive. In 7 patients, a total of 387 sustained VT episodes were detected by the ICD. At follow-up, 10 inappropriate shocks were delivered in four patients. One early and six late lead revisions were done in seven patients. 12/16 (75%) patients had concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy. About half of the adolescents showed signs of depression and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: ICD therapy via transvenous access for prevention of sudden cardiac death is feasible and effective even in small children. However, the occurrence of lead complications is significant. Since about half of the adolescents showed signs of depression and/or anxiety, professional psychological surveillance should be considered in these patients.     

Third- and fourth-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators: current status and future development

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has become the mainstay of therapy for patients with a history of sudden cardiac death or life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. The current generation of ICDs used for secondary prevention combines features for tachycardia reversion with demand ventricular pacing, antitachycardia pacing, programmable shock therapy, and tachycardia events memory. Although demand pacing and defibrillation is indicated for primary prevention usage of ICDs, the application of antitachycardia pacing modes is more controversial. High energy cardioversion and defibrillation shocks remaining the mainstay of sudden death prevention will be redefined as more effective defibrillation shock modes and lead systems are developed. Fourth-generation ICD systems accomplished a significant reduction of device size and almost universal success using an endocardial lead configuration and pectoral implant. A variety of new directions of ICD therapy in clinical practice such as primary prevention applications and the adjunctive role of antiarrhythmic drug therapy are currently being examined in clinical trials. The concepts underlying initiation of tachyarrhythmias are being studied to develop new approaches to tachycardia prevention. These include rate support, subthreshold stimulation, and multiple site pacing. The current developments of ICD therapy promise continued growth of this technology.     

Significance and control of cardiac arrhythmias in patients with congestive cardiac failure

A wide spectrum of ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias occurs in the setting of congestive cardiac failure. However, the two most clinically significant are atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation.In the past there has been much emphasis on premature ventricular contractions and more recently, on nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. For the most part, these arrhythmias are asymptomatic in heart failure. They are markers of sudden arrhythmic death but their suppression by antiarrhythmic drugs have not resulted in a reduction of total mortality. Two approaches have been used to this end. The first is the use of beta-adrenergic blocking drugs and antiarrhythmic agents such as amiodarone. Beta-blockers have been shown to significantly reduce sudden death as well as total mortality, while the effects of amiodarone have been less decisive. The prospective role of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is undergoing critical evaluation in patients with cardiac failure at high risk for sudden death. The elective role of the ICD is well established as first-line therapy in patients with heart failure resuscitated from sudden death and in those with sustained ventricular tachycardia in conjunction with conventional therapies for cardiac decompensation.The prevalence of atrial fibrillation rises as a function of severity of cardiac failure, but it is also in known that persistent atrial fibrillation with an uncontrolled ventricular response may induce heart failure. Controlled ventricular response may prevent congestive heart failure and improve left ventricular function. The two most common causes of atrial fibrillation in cardiac failure in Europe and America are ischemic heart disease and hypertension, while mitral valve disease remains the prevalent cause elsewhere. The choice of antiarrhythmic drugs for maintaining sinus rhythm is critical in the prevention of heart failure aggravation and proarrhythmic reactions of antiarrhythmic drugs. Amiodarone and dofetilide are most widely used in this context.     

Sudden cardiac death

Opinion statement Sudden cardiac death is often due to a ventricular arrhythmia. When a patient presents with a malignant arrhythmia unrelated to a transient reversible cause, there is a high probability of recurrent arrhythmia and sudden death. Clinical trials have shown a uniform survival benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of a malignant arrhythmia when compared with drug therapy. However, only 1% to 5% of patients survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, emphasizing the need for primary prevention of sudden death. Clinical trial data available in this regard are largely limited to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Mortality can be reduced by the ICD in patients with CAD and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 30%. If left ventricular function is only moderately depressed (LVEF between 30% and 40%), the presence of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia with inducible ventricular arrhythmia at electrophysiologic testing identifies patients who benefit from an ICD. The role of the ICD in primary prevention of sudden death in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy is less clear at this time. Preliminary data indicate that the presence of heart failure symptoms in this population increases risk of sudden death that can be prevented by an ICD. Antiarrhythmic drugs have little role in prevention of sudden death; however, drugs that block the effects of β-adrenergic stimulation, angiotensin, and aldosterone reduce mortality partly through their salutary effects on sudden death. Finally, a number of inherited defects of genes coding for ion channels, contractile sarcomeric proteins, and cell-to-cell junction proteins can result in primary electrical abnormalities and sudden death. The ICD is effective for secondary prevention, but its role in primary prevention is controversial and should be based on individual risk factors.