Cardiac imaging in evaluating patients prone to sudden death

Identifying subjects who are at risk for SCD and stratifying them correctly into low or high-risk groups is the holy grail of Cardiology. While imaging shows a lot of promise, it is plagued by the fact that most SCD occurs in relatively healthy subjects, a massive group who would not ordinarily be subjected to imaging. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) currently is our primary parameter for risk stratification for sudden cardiac death but is a poor marker with low sensitivity and specificity. Current data shows that sophisticated imaging with techniques, mainly Cardiac magnetic resonance Imaging (CMR), have the potential to identify novel high-risk markers underlying SCD, beyond ejection fraction. Imaging seems to further refine risk in patients with low LVEF as well as in those with normal EF; this is a major strength of advanced imaging. Clinical application has been slow and not fully prime time. It is important to remember that while promising, imaging techniques including CMR, have not been tested in rigorous prospective studies and thus have not as yet replaced EF as the gatekeeper to ICD implantation.     

Sudden cardiac death in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Although SCD is most often associated with coronary heart disease, the risk of SCD in patients without ischemic heart disease is well-established. Nonischemic cardiomyopathies, including idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy represent three unique disease entities that have been shown to be highly associated with SCD and ventricular arrhythmias. A variety of risk stratification tools have been investigated, although the optimal strategy remains unknown. Identification of the arrhythmogenic substrate and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in these subgroups can be challenging. Herein, we aim to discuss the current understanding of the anatomic and electrophysiologic substrate underlying ventricular arrhythmias and highlight features that may be associated with a higher risk of SCD in these 3 conditions.     

Complexity of scar and ventricular arrhythmias in dilated cardiomyopathy of any etiology: Long‐term data from the SCARFEAR (Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Predictors of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Therapy Delivery) Registry

Background

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) assessed with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) correlates with ventricular arrhythmias and survival in patients with structural heart disease. Whether some LGE characteristics may specifically improve prediction of arrhythmic outcomes is unknown.

Hypothesis

We sought to evaluate scar characteristics assessed with CMR to predict implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) interventions in dilated cardiomyopathy of different etiology.

Methods

96 consecutive patients evaluated with CMR received an ICD. Biventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and myocardial LGE were evaluated. LGE was defined as “complex” (Cx‐LGE) in presence of ≥1 of the following: ischemic pattern, involving ≥2 different coronary territories; epicardial pattern; global endocardial pattern; and presence of ≥2 different patterns. The primary endpoint was occurrence of any appropriate ICD intervention. A composite secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device implantation was also considered.

Results

During a median follow‐up of 75 months, 30 and 25 patients reached the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. Cx‐LGE was correlated with a worse primary endpoint survival (log‐rank P < 0.001). Cx‐LGE and right ventricular end‐diastolic volume were independently associated with the primary endpoint (HR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.56–6.65, P = 0.002; and HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00–1.12, P = 0.045, respectively), but not with the secondary endpoint.

Conclusions

Cx‐LGE identified at CMR imaging seems promising as an independent and specific prognostic factor of ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD therapy in dilated cardiomyopathy of different etiologies.     

Left Ventricular Scar Burden Specifies the Potential for Ventricular Arrhythmogenesis: An LGE‐CMR Study

Late Gadolinium Enhancement and Arrhythmias . Introduction : The extent of left ventricular (LV) scar, characterized by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MRI (LGE‐CMR), has been shown to predict the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients. However, the specificity of LGE‐CMR for sudden cardiac death (SCD) versus non‐SCD is unclear. The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to evaluate this relationship in a cohort of ICD recipients. Methods and Results : We included consecutive patients who had undergone LGE‐CMR before ICD implantation over a 4‐year period (2006–2009). Scar (defined as myocardium with a signal intensity ≥50% of the maximum in scar tissue) was characterized in terms of percent scar and number of transmural LV scar segments in a 17‐segment model. The endpoints were appropriate ICD therapy and all‐cause mortality. Sixty‐four patients (average age 66 ± 11 years, 51 male, median LVEF 30%) were included. During 42 ± 13 months follow‐up, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 28 patients (44%), and 14 patients (22%) died. Number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.005) and percentage LV scar (P = 0.03) were both significantly associated with appropriate ICD therapy. However, neither number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.32) or percent LV scar (P = 0.59) was significantly associated with all‐cause mortality. Conclusion : In this observational study, in medium‐term follow‐up, the extent of LV scar characterized by LGE‐CMR was strongly associated with the occurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias but not all‐cause mortality. We hypothesize that scar quantification by LGE‐CMR may be more specific for SCD than non‐SCD, and may prove a valuable tool for the selection of patients for ICD therapy. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 24, pp. 430‐436, April 2013)     

Sudden Cardiac Death: A Review Focused on Cardiovascular Imaging

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is defined as natural death due to cardiac causes, heralded by abrupt loss of consciousness within 1 h of the onset of acute symptoms; pre-existing heart disease may have been known to be present but the time and mode of death are unexpected. Prediction and prevention of SCD is an area of active investigation, but considerable challenges persist that limit the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of available methodologies. It was well-recognized that optimization of SCD risk stratification would require integration of multi-disciplinary efforts at the bench and bedside, with studies in the general population. This integration has yet to be effectively accomplished. There is also increasing awareness that more investigation needs to be directed toward the identification of early predictors of SCD. Significant advancements have recently occurred for risk prediction in the inherited channelopathies and other inherited conditions that predispose to SCD, but there is much to be accomplished in this regard for the more common complex phenotypes, such as SCD among patients with coronary artery disease. A multimodality imaging approach is actually the most important tool to provide comprehensive information on different pathophysiological mechanisms related to SCD.     

Sudden cardiac death: Epidemiologic and financial worldwide perspective

The term sudden cardiac death (SCD) implies the sudden and unexpected loss of an active, productive member of the community. SCD is typically attributed to lethal ventricular arrhythmias; however, these arrhythmias are impossible to diagnose after the fact. Epidemiologic analyses, therefore, rely on inference of the cause of death. Estimates of the incidence of are SCD variable but it may be as high as 1 per 1,000 per year. The cost of SCD to society is incalculable. Current strategies for preventing SCD rely on risk assessment for cardiology patients and implantation of defibrillators (ICD) in high risk patients. Unfortunately, the absolute number of SCDs that occur in the general (relatively low-risk) population is large compared to the number of SCDs in the high risk population. Therefore, prevention of SCD in high risk populations is unlikely to prevent the majority of SCDs. Cost-effectiveness of ICD implantation for prevention of SCD has been studied; ICDs appear to meet U.S. and European criteria for cost-effectiveness if their benefit extends to at least 7–8 years. However, therapies considered cost-effective may nonetheless be too costly for most worldwide societies. Currently, investigators are focusing on refining risk stratification, partly in hopes of identifying patients for whom ICD implantation will not be useful.     

Sudden cardiac death in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: Refining risk assessment

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk assessment among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) has been has been less straightforward than for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The common surrogate that has been associated with highest SCD risk for all cardiomyopathies, and which has been universally used to guide implantation of primary‐prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs), is left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, this practice has been called into question, especially in light of recent trials suggesting that ICD treatment may not be of additional survival benefit among those with NICM treated with optimal medical therapy. This Clinical Review attempts to offer refinements to the current practice of SCD risk assessment among patients with NICM, with specific focus on importance of NICM etiology and efforts to identify myocardial scarring and arrhythmogenic substrate, both of which may provide greater information about SCD risk than the LVEF alone. These concepts are illustrated further as they apply to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and cardiac sarcoidosis, all of which are increasingly recognized NICM substrates associated with SCD and for which refinements for assessing risk are lacking in conventional guidelines.     

A ressonância magnética cardíaca como uma mais-valia no diagnóstico etiológico de arritmias ventriculares

IntroductionCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is increasingly important in the diagnostic work-up of a wide range of heart diseases, including those with arrhythmogenic potential.ObjectiveTo assess the added value of CMR in etiological diagnosis of ventricular arrhythmias after an inconclusive conventional investigation.MethodsPatients undergoing CMR between 2005 and 2011 for investigation of ventricular arrhythmias were included (n=113). All had documented arrhythmias. Those with a definite diagnosis from a previous investigation and those with evidence of coronary artery disease (acute coronary syndrome, typical angina symptoms, increase in biomarkers or positive stress test) were excluded. CMR results were considered relevant when they fulfilled diagnostic criteria.ResultsOf the 113 patients, 57.5% were male and mean age was 41.7±16.2 years. Regarding the initial arrhythmia, 38.1% had ventricular fibrillation/sustained ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT) and 61.9% had less complex ventricular ectopy. CMR imaging showed criteria of a specific diagnosis in 42.5% of patients, was totally normal in 36.3%, and showed non-specific alterations in the remainder. In VF/VT patients, specific criteria were found in 60.4%, and in 31.4% of those with less complex ectopy.The most frequent diagnoses were arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, ventricular non-compaction and myopericarditis. It is worth noting that, although there was no evidence of previous coronary artery disease, 6.2% of patients had a late gadolinium enhancement distribution pattern compatible with myocardial infarction.ConclusionCMR gives additional and important information in the diagnostic work-up of ventricular arrhythmias after an inconclusive initial investigation. The proportion of patients with diagnostic criteria was 42.5% (60.0% in those with VF/VT), and CMR was completely normal in 36.6%.     

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.     

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy of left ventricle. A rare event,but possible

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) is a form of inherited cardiomyopathy characterized by fibro-fatty substitution mainly right ventricular (RV). Affected patients may succumb to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and heart failure. It is even more common among athletes who experience sudden cardiac death (SCD). The disease involvement is not limited only to the RV, but the left ventricle (LV) can also be involved. We have reported a case of a 38 years-old man, with two episodes of syncope in his history. After echocardiographic investigations, the patient was referred to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Morphological images showed fatty infiltration of the epicardial layer of LV lateral wall (mid and apical segment). A diagnosis of ‘Isolated Left-Sided Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy’ was made. An ICD implantation was performed, and a medical therapy with enalapril and bisoprolol was started.     

Tools for risk stratification of sudden cardiac death: A review of the literature in different patient populations

While various modalities to determine risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) have been reported in clinical studies, currently reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remains the cornerstone of SCD risk stratification. However, the absolute burden of SCD is greatest amongst populations without known cardiac disease. In this review, we summarize the evidence behind current guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use for the prevention of SCD in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). We also evaluate the evidence for risk stratification tools beyond clinical guidelines in the general population, patients with IHD, and patients with other known or suspected medical conditions.     

Risk factors for sudden cardiac death to determine high risk patients in specific patient populations that may benefit from a wearable defibrillator

BACKGROUND There is a high risk for sudden cardiac death(SCD) in certain patient groups that would not meet criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD) therapy.In conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy(HCM) there are clear risk scores that help define patients who are high risk for SCD and would benefit from ICD therapy. There are however many areas of uncertainty such as certain patients post myocardial infarction(MI). These patients are high risk for SCD but there is no clear tool for risk stratifying such patients.AIM To assess risk factors for sudden cardiac death in major cardiac disorders and to help select patients who might benefit from Wearable cardiac defibrillators(WCD).METHODS A literature search was performed looking for risk factors for SCD in patients post-MI, patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction(LVSD), HCM, long QT syndrome(LQTS). There were 41 studies included and risk factors and the relative risks for SCD were compiled in table form.RESULTS We extracted data on relative risk for SCD of specific variables such as age,gender, ejection fraction. The greatest risk factors for SCD in post MI patients was the presence of diabetes [Hazard ratio(HR) 1.90-3.80], in patient with LVSD was ventricular tachycardia(Relative risk 3.50), in LQTS was a prolonged QTc(HR36.53) and in patients with HCM was LVH greater than 20 mm(HR 3.10). A proportion of patients currently not suitable for ICD might benefit from a WCDCONCLUSION There is a very high risk of SCD post MI, in patients with LVSD, HCM and LQTS even in those who do not meet criteria for ICD implantation. These patients may be candidates for a WCD. The development of more sensitive risk calculators to predict SCD is necessary in these patients to help guide treatment.     

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.     

Sudden Cardiac Death Unresponsive to Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: An Urgent Target for Clinicians,Industry and Government

A major expansion in utilization of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is anticipated based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) that demonstrate increased survival in a sizable population of patients with reduced left ventricular function. However, if RCT accurately reflect clinical practice, then a substantial proportion of patients will die suddenly despite ICD implantation. ICD-unresponsive sudden cardiac death (SCD) has been recognized since the initial ICD experience. Yet, despite 25 years of technical advances, the frequency of ICD-unresponsive SCD has not declined. Pooled analysis of RCT indicates a crude rate of ICD-unresponsive SCD of 5%. This may not cause alarm in an average practice, but it comprises about 30% of cardiac deaths. Meta-analyses of RCT show that ICD therapy is associated with a relative risk reduction of SCD of approximately 60%, far less than the greater than 90% efficacy that many expect. The suboptimal performance of ICD therapy accounts for the failure of some RCT to achieve statistically significant effects on survival. The number of patients with ICD-unresponsive SCD is highly correlated with the number of cardiac deaths among control patients as well as ICD recipients. Otherwise, no definite patterns have emerged that clearly distinguish this mode of demise from other modes of cardiac death. Retrospective post-hoc analyses have not revealed distinguishing characteristics of patients with ICD-unresponsive SCD with respect to clinical variables, pre-terminal symptoms or to the setting of the terminal event. Despite advanced storage capabilities of implanted devices, almost no information has become available from RCT regarding the terminal rhythm or the response of the ICD. These observations have implications for clinical management and research. Candidates for ICD implantation based on RCT should be accurately informed about the residual risk of SCD. Investigators seeking to identify populations likely to benefit from ICD therapy based on SCD incidence should recognize that a significant fraction may not respond to ICD therapy. Reducing the incidence of ICD-unresponsive SCD would substantially improve survival and cost-effectiveness related to ICD therapy. Close cooperation between clinicians, investigators and representatives of industry and government is urgently needed to develop strategies to identify patients prone to ICD-unresponsive SCD, to determine its mechanisms and to develop methods of prevention and treatment.     

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.     

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Can the noninvasive diagnostic testing identify high risk patients?

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy(HCM) is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death(SCD) in the young, particularly among athletes. Identifying high risk individuals is very important for SCD prevention. The purpose of this review is to stress that noninvasive diagnostic testing is important for risk assessment. Extreme left ventricular hypertrophy and documented ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation increase the risk of SCD. Fragmented QRS and T wave inversion in multiple leads are more common in high risk patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides complete visualization of the left ventricular chamber, allowing precise localization of the distribution of hypertrophy and measurement of wall thickness and cardiac mass. Moreover, with late gadolinium enhancement, patchy myocardial fibrosis within the area of hypertrophy can be detected, which is also helpful in risk stratification. Genetic testing is encouraged in all cases, especially in those with a family history of HCM and SCD.     

Comprehensive Phenotypic Characterization of Late Gadolinium Enhancement Predicts Sudden Cardiac Death in Coronary Artery Disease

BackgroundLate gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers the potential to noninvasively characterize the phenotypic substrate for sudden cardiac death (SCD).ObjectivesThe authors assessed the utility of infarct characterization by CMR, including scar microstructure analysis, to predict SCD in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).MethodsPatients with stable CAD were prospectively recruited into a CMR registry. LGE quantification of core infarction and the peri-infarct zone (PIZ) was performed alongside computational image analysis to extract morphologic and texture scar microstructure features. The primary outcome was SCD or aborted SCD.ResultsOf 437 patients (mean age: 64 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 47%) followed for a median of 6.3 years, 49 patients (11.2%) experienced the primary outcome. On multivariable analysis, PIZ mass and core infarct mass were independently associated with the primary outcome (per gram: HR: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.02-1.12]; P = 0.002 and HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 1.01-1.05]; P = 0.01, respectively), and the addition of both parameters improved discrimination of the model (Harrell’s C-statistic: 0.64-0.79). PIZ mass, however, did not provide incremental prognostic value over core infarct mass based on Harrell’s C-statistic or risk reclassification analysis. Severely reduced LVEF did not predict the primary endpoint after adjustment for scar mass. On scar microstructure analysis, the number of LGE islands in addition to scar transmurality, radiality, interface area, and entropy were all associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for severely reduced LVEF and New York Heart Association functional class of >1. No scar microstructure feature remained associated with the primary endpoint when PIZ mass and core infarct mass were added to the regression models.ConclusionsComprehensive LGE characterization independently predicted SCD risk beyond conventional predictors used in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion guidelines. These results signify the potential for a more personalized approach to determining ICD candidacy in CAD.     

心衰患者心源性猝死的一级预防

心衰患者SCD平均发生率约40％。 本文综述SCD发生率、原因、高危病人的识别及药物治疗对SCD的影响。并且概述ICD在SCD一级预防中的重要性。     

扩张型心肌病临床与预后的关系探讨

目的 :探讨扩张型心肌病(DCM )发生心脏性猝死 (SCD)的高危因素 ,研究DCM临床与预后的关系。方法 :对 60例DCM临床资料进行分析 ,以超声心动图 (UCG)、心电图 (ECG)、动态心电图 (DCG、Holter)及X线胸片观察心脏各参数变化 ,并做心电图QT离散度 (QTd)测定。结果 :有病毒性心肌炎病史与无病毒性心肌炎病史病人 ,重度心力衰竭、严重室性心律失常的发生率分别为 66.7%和 2 3 .3 % ,经比较有统计学意义 (P <0 .0 5 ) ;5例SCD均有病毒性心肌炎史 ,临死前都发生多次严重室性心律失常、晕厥 ;QTd对预测SCD高危因素有意义。结论 :有病毒性心肌炎史、心力衰竭、严重室性心律失常、头晕或晕厥及QTd增加 ,可作为预测发生SCD的高危因素。     

Myocardial scar characteristics based on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy

Objectives

We hypothesized that myocardial scar characterization using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) may be associated with the occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT), appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy and mortality.

Background

Since a minority of patients with prophylactic ICD implantation receive appropriate ICD therapy, there is a need for more effective risk stratification for primary prevention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods and results

In 99 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, CMR was performed prior to ICD implantation. We assessed if CMR indices (cardiac mass, LVEF) and CMR scar characteristics (infarct core mass, peri-infarction mass and the ratio's between left ventricular mass, infarct core mass and peri-infarction mass) were associated with outcome. The primary endpoint was sustained VT and/or appropriate ICD therapy. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years (IQR 4.5–6.6 years), 34 patients reached the primary end-point (17 appropriate ICD shocks) and 26 patients died. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, peri-infarction to core-infarction ratio (HR 2.01, 95%CI: 1.17–3.44, p = 0.01) was independently and significantly associated with the primary endpoint, whereas NYHA-class and lower LVEF were not. Conversely, age (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.12, p = 0.02) and lower LVEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, p = 0.04) were independently associated with all-cause mortality, mainly due to heart failure.

Conclusion

A relatively large peri-infarction mass is associated with sustained VT and/or appropriate ICD therapy, whereas age and lower LVEF are associated with mortality. CMR based tissue characterization could aid in the prediction of specific outcome measures and in clinical decision making.