Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy predicts arrhythmia and mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy

Purpose

The relatively low incidence of device-treated ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention makes improved risk stratification of ICM patients a priority. Although Cornell product (CP) ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been associated with increased mortality in hypertensive patients and population-based studies, whether CP LVH can improve risk stratification of high-risk ICM patients is unclear. The aim of this study is to examine if electrocardiographic LVH predicts mortality and incident ventricular arrhythmia in patients with ICM.

Methods

All-cause mortality was examined in 317 patients with ICM and a history of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) who underwent electrophysiology testing. Incident VT and ventricular fibrillation (VF) were assessed in ICD recipients (n?=?186). ECG LVH was defined by CP criteria: [(R _aVL?+?S _V3)?+?6?mm in women]?×?QRS duration >2,440?mm?ms.

Results

During 3?years of follow-up, mortality was 20% (64 of 317) and death or incident VT or VF occurred in 35% of ICD recipients. CP LVH was associated with significantly greater 3-year mortality (28% vs 15%, p?=?0.015) and 3-year mortality or incident VT/VF in ICD patients (48% vs 35%, p?=?0.011). In Cox multivariate models, CP LVH was an independent predictor of mortality in all patients (hazard ratio (HR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11?C2.97, p?=?0.020) and of the composite endpoint of mortality or incident ventricular arrhythmia in ICD patients (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.12?C3.00, p?=?0.016).

Conclusions

ECG LVH using CP criteria may enhance risk stratification in high-risk patients with ICM.     

Hemodynamically Tolerated Ventricular Tachycardia With Mildly Impaired Ejection Fraction: Do These Patients Have VT/VF Recurrence and ICD Therapies?

BackgroundPatients with hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia (VT) and minimally reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain a group that presents a prognostic and therapeutic dilemma.MethodsWe studied patients from our implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) database who received ICDs for hemodynamically tolerated VT and mildly reduced LVEF (36%-49%) at time of implant between May 2015 and December 2019. Time to appropriate ICD therapy was assessed. Clinical features associated with recurrent VT/ventricular fibrillation (VF) with ICD therapies were explored using binary logistic regression.ResultsAmong 2037 ICDs placed between May 2015 and December 2019, 64 subjects met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the study group was 68 ± 12 years, and 58 (90.6%) subjects were male. Average ejection fraction was 40% ± 4.4 (range 36%-49%). Twenty-two (34%) subjects received antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for VT at 229 ± 265 days after ICD placement. Fifteen (23%) subjects received appropriate ICD shocks 305 ± 321 days after implant. The rate of recurrent VT/VF among the 37 patients with ICD therapy was 195 ± 39 beats per minute (bpm). This was significantly more rapid than initial presenting VT rates before ICD placement (183 ± 27 bpm) (P = 0.048). Multivariate analysis showed no factors independently associated with recurrent VT/VF.ConclusionsPatients with mildly impaired LV function and hemodynamically tolerated VT receive appropriate ICD therapies over the 3 years following implant. This patient group warrants further investigation, as their recurrent VT/VF rates can be much more rapid, and 23% go on to receive appropriate ICD shocks.     

Dofetilide reduces the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies

Dofetilide Reduces VT/VF and ICD Therapies . Background: Patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ventricular arrhythmias leading to ICD therapies have poor clinical outcomes and quality of life. Antiarrhythmic agents and catheter ablation are needed to control these arrhythmias. Dofetilide has only been approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The role of dofetilide in the control of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with an ICD has not been established. Objective: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of dofetilide in a consecutive group of patients with an ICD and recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/ or ventricular fibrillation (VF) after other antiarrhythmic drugs have failed to suppress these arrhythmias. Methods: We studied 30 patients (age 59 ± 11; 5 women) with symptomatic VT or VF and ICDs for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. These patients had an average of 1.8 ± 4.5 episodes of VT/VF per month despite antiarrhymic therapy. Twenty‐one patients (70%) had recurrent appropriate ICD therapies prior to initiation of dofetilide, and 9 (30%) VTs below the programmed detection rate of the ICD. Twenty‐three patients (77%) had coronary artery disease. Mean ejection fraction was 30 ± 14% and 26/30 (87%) had congestive heart failure. All patients had previously failed 2 ± 1 antiarrhythmic drugs including amiodarone (n = 19) and sotalol (n = 10). Results: During the first month of treatment, 25 patients (83%) had complete suppression of VT/VF and of the 21 patients with ICD therapies 16 (76%) had no therapies during the first month of treatment. During a follow‐up period of 32 ± 32 months, dofetilide reduced the monthly episodes of VT/VF from 1.8 ± 4.5 to 1.0 ± 3.5 (P = 0.006). Monthly ICD therapies decreased from 0.9 ± 1.4 to 0.4 ± 1.7 (P = 0.037). In 9 patients that presented with slow VTs under the ICD detection zone, dofetilide reduced monthly VT/VF episodes from 0.7 ± 0.6 to 0.1 ± 0.1 (P = 0.01) and 6 (67%) had no further ICD therapies. Dofetilide was discontinued in 13 patients (43%) after 24 ± 30 months due to failure to control VT/VF (n = 7), placement of a left ventricular assist device (n = 3), catheter ablation (n = 1), heart transplantation (n = 1), and left ventricular restoration surgery (n = 1). There were 7 documented deaths (2 patients died suddenly; 3 patients of progressive heart failure; and 2 of non‐cardiac causes). Conclusions: In patients with an ICD and ventricular arrhythmias, dofetilide decreases the frequency of VT/VF and ICD therapies even when other antiarrhythmic agents, including amiodarone, have previously been ineffective. Recurrences still occur in some patients requiring catheter ablation, mechanical support, or heart transplantation. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23 p. 296‐301, March 2012.)     

Cardiac Output Is Not Affected During Intraoperative Testing of the Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Cardiac Output and ICD Implantation. Introduction: Perioperative mortality of patients undergoing implantation of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been reduced dramatically following the availibility of trans venous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads. However, patients with severely reduced left ventricular function show a substantial rate of nonsudden cardiac mortality within the first year. Whether repeated intraoperative inductions of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) during implantation lead to hemodynamic deterioration and thus might contribute to development of end-stage heart failure in these patients is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to determine cardiac output and hemodynamic performance during transvenous-subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Methods and Results: In 11 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 0.35, cardiac output was measured automatically with a combined continuous cardiac output/mixed venous oxygen saturation pulmonary artery catheter system. ICD implantation was performed during standardized general anesthesia. In the 11 patients (EF = 27 ± 2% [mean ± SEM]) a total of 95 episodes of VT/VF followed by defibrillation were induced (epsiodes per patient = 9 ± 1; range 6 to 11). Cardiac index was 2.2 ± 0.2 L·min^-1·min^-2 after induction of anesthesia (before start of surgery), and 1.9 ± 0.1 L·min^-1·m^-2 immediately before first induction of VT/VF. After the last episode of VT/VF, cardiac index was 2.1 ± 0.2 L·min^-1·m^-2. Cardiac index measured 1, 2, and 3 minutes after induction of VT/VF was not significantly different when compared to the preinduction value during any episode of VT/VF induction. Similarly, stroke volume index was 39 ± 5 mL·m^-2 immediately before first induction of VT/VF and 36 ± 3 mL·m^-2 after the last episode of VT/VF (NS). At the end of surgery, hemodynamic parameters did not exhibit any significant difference when compared to the data obtained before start of ICD implantation and testing. Conclusion: Extensive defibrillation tests during transvenous-subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction are not associated with acute deterioration of cardiac performance.     

Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in a US myotonic dystrophy type 1 population

Pacemakers and ICDs in Myotonic Dystrophy. Introduction: We assessed implant rates, indications, characteristics, and outcomes in patients with the neuromuscular disease, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) receiving a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). Methods and Results: Device use was evaluated in a prospective, multicenter registry of 406 genetically confirmed adult patients followed for 9.5 ± 3.2 years. Forty‐six (11.3%) had or received a pacemaker and 21 (5.2%) received an ICD. Devices were primarily implanted for asymptomatic conduction abnormalities and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, 7 (15.2%) pacemakers were implanted for third‐degree atrioventricular block and 6 (28.6%) ICDs were implanted for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or fibrillation [VF]). Patients receiving devices were older and more frequently had heart failure, LV systolic dysfunction, atrial tachyarrhythmias, and ECG conduction abnormalities compared to nondevice patients. Five (10.9%) pacemaker patients underwent upgrade to an ICD, 3 for LV systolic dysfunction, 1 for VT/VF, and 1 for progressive conduction disease. Seventeen (27.4%) of the 62 patients with devices were pacemaker‐dependent at last follow‐up. Three (14.3%) ICD patients had appropriate therapies. Twenty‐four (52.2%) pacemaker patients died including 13 of respiratory failure and 7 of sudden death. Seven (33.3%) ICD patients died including 2 of respiratory failure and 3 of sudden death. The patients with ICDs and sudden death all had LV systolic dysfunction and 1 death was documented due to inappropriate therapies. Conclusions: DM1 patients commonly receive antiarrhythmia devices. The risk of VT/VF and sudden death suggests that ICDs rather than pacemakers should be considered for these patients. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 1369‐1375, December 2011)     

Predictive value of ventricular arrhythmia inducibility for subsequent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients.

In the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Both inducible and noninducible patients received an ICD. We correlated inducibility with the occurrence of subsequent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Intracardiac ICD electrograms for subsequent events were analyzed to categorize the spontaneous arrhythmia as VT or VF. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT in inducible patients was 29.0% versus 19.3% in noninducible patients. However, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common at two years in inducible patients (3.2%) than in noninducible patients (8.6%). In the MADIT II study, inducibility predicted an increased likelihood of VT but decreased VF. OBJECTIVES: We correlated electrophysiologic inducibility with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II. BACKGROUND: In the MADIT II study, 593 (82%) of 720 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Patients received an ICD whether they were inducible or not. METHODS: A "standard" inducibility definition included sustained monomorphic or polymorphic VT induced with three or fewer extrastimuli or VF induced with two or fewer extrastimuli. We compared a narrow inducibility definition (only monomorphic VT) and a broad definition (standard definition plus VF with three extrastimuli). We used ICD-stored electrograms to categorize spontaneous VT or VF. RESULTS: Inducible patients (standard definition) had a greater likelihood of experiencing ICD therapy for VT than noninducible patients (p = 0.023). Unexpectedly, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common (p = 0.021) in inducible patients than in noninducible patients. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT or VF was 29.4% for inducible patients and 25.5% for noninducible patients. Standard inducibility did not predict the combined end point of VT or VF (p = 0.280, by log-rank analysis). The narrow inducibility definition outperformed the standard definition, whereas the broad definition appeared inferior to the standard definition. CONCLUSIONS: In the MADIT II study patients, inducibility was associated with an increased likelihood of VT. Noninducible MADIT II study subjects using this electrophysiologic protocol had a considerable VT event rate and a higher VF event rate than inducible patients. Induction of polymorphic VT or VF, even with double extrastimuli, appears less relevant than induction of monomorphic VT.     

The clinical implications of cumulative right ventricular pacing in the multicenter automatic defibrillator trial II

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to assess whether right ventricular pacing in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) arm of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II was associated with an unfavorable outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on the number of ventricular paced beats were available in 567 (76%) of 742 MADIT II patients with ICDs. The number of ventricular paced beats over the total number of beats showed a bimodal distribution with patients being predominantly paced or nonpaced. Therefore, patients were dichotomized at 0-50% and 51-100% of cumulative pacing with median pacing rate 0.2% and 95.6%, respectively. Endpoints included new or worsening heart failure, appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF, and the combined endpoint of heart failure or death. Clinical features associated with frequent ventricular pacing included age >or=65 years, advanced NYHA heart failure class, LVEF < 0.25, first degree AV and bundle branch block, and amiodarone use. During follow-up, 119 patients (21%) had new or worsened heart failure, 130 (23%) had new or worsened heart failure or death, and 142 (25%) had appropriate therapy for VT/VF. In comparison to patients with infrequent pacing, those with frequent pacing had significantly higher risk of new or worsened heart failure (hazard ratio = 1.93; P = 0.002) and VT/VF requiring ICD therapy (HR = 1.50; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in MADIT II who were predominantly paced had a higher rate of new or worsened heart failure and were more likely to receive therapy for VT/VF. These results suggest the deleterious consequences of RV pacing, particularly in the setting of severe LV dysfunction.     

Long‐Term Survival of Routine Implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator Recipients Appears to be Significantly Impaired with Concomitant Diuretics and Improved with Aldosterone Antagonists

Evidence‐based treatment for heart failure (HF) comprises beta‐blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor antagonists (ARA). Diuretics (DR) are prescribed in acute and chronic HF, but their impact on survival and ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT/VF) is unclear. The present observational study aims to examine the influence of DR and ARA on survival and appropriate cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) treatment episodes in routine ICD patients. In 352 consecutive ICD patients (291 men, 60 ± 12 years, LVEF 34 ± 15%, follow‐up 37 ± 19 months) overall survival and the time to a first appropriate VT/VF episode were assessed. Electrograms were validated. Potassium and creatinine serum levels and the medical treatment regimen for heart failure were documented at baseline. Multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed significantly worse survival for patients with DR compared to those without DR (OR 0.24, CI 0.08–0.76, P= 0.016), whereas the group with ARA had better survival compared to patients without (OR 2.05, CI 1.02–4.10, P= 0.04). Patient groups did not differ regarding survival without incident VT/VF (DR+ vs. DR– OR 1.10, CI 0.67–1.83, P= 0.70; OR 0.66, CI 0.40–1.09, P= 0.10). Long‐term survival appears to be compromised in ICD patients receiving concomitant DR, but is favorably influenced by ARA, although VT/VF incidence does not differ. Randomized analyses are warranted to assess long‐term prognostic effects of DR in HF.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks from ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with ischemic heart disease: Preventative measures,shortcomings, cost-effectiveness,and global practice perspectives

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven to be life-saving devices in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who are prone to develop ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation (VF). Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are commonly prescribed in many such patients with ICDs to treat and prevent different forms of arrhythmias in clinical practice. When these patients experience recurrent monomorphic VT despite chronic AADs therapy, or when AAD therapy is contraindicated or not tolerated, and VT storm is refractory to AAD therapy, catheter ablation constitute guideline-based class I indication of treatment. However, what should be the most appropriate strategy to prevent first ICD shock or subsequent multiple shocks from VT/VF in patients with ICM who undergo ICD implantation without prior incidence of cardiac arrest, remains debatable. The purpose of this review is to discuss preventative aspects of ICD shocks for VT and the shortcomings of these measures along with the cost-effectiveness and global perspectives based on the current knowledge of the topic.     

Long-term follow-up in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

Long‐Term Prognosis in Patients with ARVC. Introduction: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a major cause of sudden cardiac death due to tachyarrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long‐term prognosis in patients with ARVC and the incidence of rapid ventricular arrhythmias during follow‐up. Methods: Thirty ARVC patients (19 male, 63.3%, mean age 48 ± 15 years) fulfilling modified Task Force criteria 2010 were included. Of them, 13 patients (43.3%) received implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Rapid ventricular arrhythmia was defined as electrical storm or the occurrence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a cycle length of 240 ms or less that necessitate shock delivery to 2 or more times within a 24‐hour period. Results: With a mean follow‐up of 68 ± 10 months, 6 patients (20%) with ICD implantation had recurrent rapid VT/VF. One (3.3%) of them died of multiple shocks and SCD, and 5 (16.7%) had multiple ICD therapies due to VT/VF and electrical storm. The interval between the diagnosis of ARVC and occurrence of rapid VT/VF was 13.4 ± 4.9 months. Most (5/6, 83.3%) events of recurrent rapid VT/VF occurred within 2 years. Ablated patients who did not receive an ICD implant were totally free of rapid VT/VF. Conclusions: For patients with ARVC, long‐term prognosis is favorable. During a long‐term follow‐up, patients meeting the criteria for ICD implantation have a higher rate of rapid and potentially life‐threatening arrhythmias. However, early and clustered recurrence of rapid VT/VF in patients with an ICD is common, whereas late occurrence of rapid VT/VF is very rare. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 750‐756, July 2012)     

Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.     

Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes

Aim

There is limited information on the outcomes after primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with heart failure (HF) and diabetes. This analysis evaluates the effectiveness of a strategy of ICD plus medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone among patients with HF and diabetes.

Methods and results

A patient‐level combined‐analysis was conducted from a combined dataset that included four primary prevention ICD trials of patients with HF or severely reduced ejection fractions: Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT I), MADIT II, Defibrillators in Non‐Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation (DEFINITE), and Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD‐HeFT). In total, 3359 patients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of interest was all‐cause death. Compared with patients without diabetes (n = 2363), patients with diabetes (n = 996) were older and had a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors. During a median follow‐up of 2.6 years, 437 patients without diabetes died (178 with ICD vs. 259 without) and 280 patients with diabetes died (128 with ICD vs. 152 without). ICDs were associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality among patients without diabetes [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.67] but not among patients with diabetes (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.7–1.12; interaction P = 0.015).

Conclusion

Among patients with HF and diabetes, primary prevention ICD in combination with medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause death. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of ICDs among patients with diabetes.

     

Elektrischer Sturm

Background

Electrical storm (ES) represents a state of cardiac electrical instability which manifests by multiple episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) within a short time. In patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), ES is best defined as ≥ 3 appropriate VT detections in 24 h, treated by antitachycardia pacing or shock. The number of shocks and inappropriate detections are irrelevant for the definition. Within a period of 3 years ES occurred in approximately 25 % of ICD patients with secondary prophylaxis indications of sudden cardiac death. Although the definition includes minor arrhythmic events, ES frequently consists of up to 50 VTs. Potential triggers found in 20–65 % of patients include new/deteriorated heart failure, diarrhea/hypokalemia, changes in antiarrhythmic medication, association with other illnesses, and psychological stress. In most patients ES consists of monomorphic VT indicating the presence of reentry while ventricular fibrillation indicating acute ischemia is rare.

Material and methods

ES seems to have a low immediate mortality (1 %) but frequently (50–80 %) leads to hospitalization. Long-term prognostic implications of ES are unclear. The key intervention in ES is a reduction of the elevated sympathetic tone by beta blockers and also frequently sedation. Amiodarone i.v. is highly efficient in ES while class I antiarrhythmic drugs are usually unsuccessful. Substrate mapping and VT ablation may be useful in treatment and prevention of ES. Prevention of ES requires ICD programming systematically avoiding unnecessary shocks by long VT detection and numerous attempts of antitachycardia pacing before shock therapy which can fuel the sympathetic tone and prolong ES.     

Echocardiographic parameters to predict inadequate defibrillation safety margin in patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention

Background

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become an important part of the management of patients with congestive heart failure. At the time of ICD implantation, ventricular fibrillation (VF) is induced to assess adequate energy required for defibrillation. There are multiple parameters which influence the defibrillation safety margin (DSM); however, these factors are not well-established when ICDs are implanted for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with severe systolic dysfunction. We evaluated multiple clinical and echocardiographic parameters as predictors of adequate DSM in patients referred for ICD implantation for the primary prevention of SCD.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 41 patients for ICD implantation with clinical indications for the primary prevention of SCD. Two blinded independent readers evaluated the prespecified echocardiographic parameters. These included left ventricular (LV) mass, indices of right ventricular and LV systolic and diastolic functions, and LV geometric dimensions. Basic clinical demographics, including age, gender, comorbidities, and etiology of cardiomyopathy, were also evaluated. DSM was established using our standard protocol for defibrillation testing which includes VF with successful first shock terminating VF at a value at least 10 J below the maximum output of the implanted device. High defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were defined as >21 J.

Results

The mean age is 61.8?±?14.7 years, with men comprising the majority of the patients (73 %). The only clinical variables which predicted the high DFT were age (in years) (54.5?±?17.5 vs. 65.7?±?11.3, p?=?0.044), QRS duration (in milliseconds) (116.0?±?29.5 vs. 110.5?±?21.8, p?=?0.03), LV mass (in grams) (241.0?±?77.9 vs. 181.9?±?52.3, p?=?0.006), and LV mass index (in grams per square meter) (111.1?±?38.2 vs. 86.4?±?21.1, p?=?0.02). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, LV mass was the only independent predictor of low DFT (≤22 J) in patients with ICD implanted for the primary prevention of SCD.

Conclusion

LV mass may help predict an adequate DSM in patients who are referred for ICD implantation for the primary prevention of SCD. These results may help distinguish the patients who may require high-energy devices prior to the implantation procedure. These results may help distinguish patients requiring high-energy devices, coils, or advanced programming prior to implantation and appropriate referral to electrophysiologists.     

Clusters of ventricular tachycardias signify impaired survival in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and implantable cardioverter defibrillators

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study was undertaken to provide data on occurrence, significance and therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) clusters (VTCs) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical significance of VTCs are lacking in patients with DCM and ICDs. METHODS: Baseline characteristics of 106 consecutive patients with DCM and ICDs were prospectively collected, and chart reviews and episode data retrospectively analyzed. A VTC was defined as > or =3 sustained VTs/24 h. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 33+/-23 months, 73 patients (68.9%) had recurrent VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF), 43 patients (40.6%) suffered only single VTs and 30 patients (28.3%) experienced 52 clusters of VTs. Actuarial survival free of VT or VF was 44.6%, 33.0% and 26.5%, and survival free of VTC was 77.3%, 72.2% and 67.1% after one, two and three years, respectively. Independent predictors of VT clusters were heart failure before ICD implantation (p = 0.033), presenting monomorphic VT (p = 0.044), EF <0.40 (p = 0.014) and inducible mVT, especially with right bundle branch block and superior axis configuration (p<0.001). Survival free of recurrent VTCs was 50.8%, 38.1% and 19.0% after one, two and three years, respectively. Once a VTC had occurred, only 56.7%, 46.4%, 30.9% and 15.5% of patients survived and were not transplanted after one, two, three and four years, respectively. Survival was even more reduced if a VTC was associated with cardiac decompensation: 65.6% and 21.9% after one and two years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite antiarrhythmic intervention, clusters of VTs occur and recur frequently in patients with DCM. They signify impaired survival, especially if they are associated with cardiac decompensation, and may be a harbinger of progressive myocardial deterioration rather than a primarily arrhythmic problem. The benefit of ICD therapy may therefore be low in these patients.     

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients with Valvular Cardiomyopathy

Sudden Death Prevention in Valvular Cardiomyopathy. Background: Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) are beneficial for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with previous SCD or left ventricular dysfunction. Objective: The objective was to investigate the outcomes of ICD implantation in patients who have surgery for valvular cardiomyopathy (VCM). Methods: We identified patients with VCM who had ICD implantation after valve surgery. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received an ICD for ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) served as controls. Patients with VCM who had valve surgery but did not receive an ICD served as an additional control group. We compared mortality and appropriate ICD discharges between the study group and control groups. Results: Mean (SD) age (31 patients with VCM with ICD, 30 with ICM, 26 with DCM, and 62 patients with VCM without ICD) was 60 (15) years, 73% were men. Ejection fraction at ICD implantation was 34%, 26%, and 23% for the VCM with ICD, ICM, and DCM groups, respectively (P = 0.03). After a median follow‐up of 4.1 years, survival was not significantly different among ICD groups (P = 0.06). The annual appropriate shock rate was 5%, 10%, and 4% for the VCM with ICD, ICM, and DCM groups, respectively (P = 0.71). Compared to VCM without ICD, patients with VCM and ICD had comparable survival (P = 0.82) despite a reduced LVEF following valve surgery. Conclusion: Patients with VCM who undergo ICD implantation for SCD prevention have similar appropriate ICD discharge rates and mortality as do those with ICM and DCM. These data are hypothesis generating and deserve confirmation with large‐scale prospective studies. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 1326‐1332, December 2012)     

Prevalence and prognosis of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in patients with post-infarction left ventricular aneurysm: Analysis of 575 cases

Background

We investigated the prevalence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in Post-infarction left ventricular aneurysm (PI-LVA) patients and analyze clinical outcomes in patients presenting with VT/VF.

Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Affects the Thioredoxin System in the Human Myocardium

Background

Oxidative stress due to reactive oxygen species (ROS) production is a key factor in the development of heart failure (HF). This study investigated the thioredoxin (Trx) system, which plays a major role in antioxidant defense, in patients suffering from ischemic (ICM) or dilated (DCM) cardiomyopathy.

Role of programmed ventricular stimulation in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and documented sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: inducibility and prognostic value in 102 patients

The role of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) in patientsat high risk of sudden death related to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy(DCM) is still controversial The possible reason is that moststudy series have been too small or that only a few patientshad documented sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This study therefore, looked at PVS performed in 102 patientswith DCM and documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT;n=63) or ventricular fibrillation (VF; n=39). Sustained VT wasinduced in 27 of 63 patients (43%) with documented sustainedVT and in 14 of 39 patients (36%) with documented VF (ns). VFwas induced in nine patients (14%) with a history of sustainedVT and in seven (18%) with a history of VF (ns). At a mean follow-upof 32±15 months, sudden death occurred in 14 (14%) patients,a rate similar in both patients with documented VT and VF (ns).Incidence of sudden death at 36 months was 6% in patients withinducible sustained VT/VF compared to 29% in patients withoutinducible VT/VF (P<0·05) A favourable drug regimen(response to drug and no intolerable side effects) was obtainedby serial drug testing in 25 of all 102 patients (25%). A cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) was implanted in 32 patients, in 63% ofwhom discharges were observed during 18±11 months offollow-up; only one patient (3%) died suddenly. Thus, in patients with DCM, there was no relationship betweendocumented and inducible ventricular tachzyarrhythmias, andinitiation of sustained VT or VF had little prognostic valuefor the prediction of subsequent sudden death. Wherever antiarrhythmic drug therapy was of limited value, implantationof an ICD may improve the prognosis of these high risk patients.     

Clinical course and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in postinfarction women with severe left ventricular dysfunction

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in postinfarction women with severe left ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of cardiac events and effects of ICD therapy in women as compared to men enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1,232 patients enrolled in MADIT II, there were 192 (16%) women and 1,040 (84%) men. When compared to men, women had an increased frequency of NYHA class > or =II (70 vs 63%; P = 0.067), hypertension (60% vs 52%; P = 0.047), diabetes (42% vs 34%; P = 0.027), and LBBB (25% vs 17%; P = 0.011), and less frequent CABG surgery (42% vs 60%; P < 0.001). The 2-year cumulative mortality in patients randomized to conventional therapy was not significantly different in women and men (30% and 20%, respectively; P = 0.19). Adjusting for relevant clinical covariates, the hazard ratios for ICD effectiveness were similar in women (0.57; 95% CI = 0.28-1.18; P = 0.132) and men (0.66; 95% CI = 0.48-0.91; P = 0.011). The risk of appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF was lower in women than in men (hazard ratio = 0.60 for female vs male gender; 95% CI = 0.37-0.98; P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: MADIT II women had similar mortality and similar ICD effectiveness when compared to men. MADIT II women with ICDs had a lower risk of arrhythmic events with fewer episodes of ventricular tachycardia than men.