Predictors of mortality in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardias or ventricular fibrillation and depressed left ventricular function: importance of beta-blockade

Pharmacologic Management for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Overview of Anti-Arrhythmic Drugs

Ventricular arrhythmias (Vas) are a life-threatening condition and preventable cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD). With the increased utilization of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD), the focus of VA management has shifted toward reduction of morbidity from VAs and ICD therapies. Anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) can be an important adjunct therapy in the treatment of recurrent VAs. In the treatment of VAs secondary to structural heart disease, amiodarone remains the most well studied and current guideline-directed pharmacologic therapy. Beta blockers also serve as an important adjunct and are a largely underutilized medication with strong evidentiary support. In patients with defined syndromes in structurally normal hearts, AADs can offer tailored therapies in prevention of SCD and improvement in quality of life. Further clinical trials are warranted to investigate the role of newer therapeutic options and for the direct comparison of established AADs.

The evolving role of novel treatment techniques in the management of patients with refractory VF/pVT out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review is to provide a brief overview of new life-saving interventions and novel techniques that have been proposed as viable treatment options for patients presenting with refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed recent, Medline and Embase databases via the Ovid interface and Google Scholar from inception to July 2019. Eligible studies were observational in nature reporting outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), esmolol, double sequential defibrillation (DSD), and stellate ganglion block (SGB). Two investigators conducted the literature search, study selection, and data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Our database search identified 5331 records. We included in our review 23 articles that met our inclusion criteria. The selected studies included 16 observational studies on ECMO, 2 observational studies on esmolol, and 5 observational studies on DSD.

CONCLUSION

We would like to suggest that there is not enough evidence in the existing literature to support at large-scale the effects of these techniques in the treatment of refractory VF/pVT OHCA. Randomized studies are warranted to evaluate the significant effects of these approaches against the best current standard of care.

Successful Treatment of Refractory Electrical Storm With Landiolol After More Than 100 Electrical Defibrillations

Electrical storm (ES) was observed in an 82-year-old man with recent myocardial infarction. Conventional therapy, including amiodarone, could not suppress the ES. After more than 100 electrical defibrillations, we were finally able to control the ES with the administration of landiolol. It is known that landiolol can inhibit ES. However, we hesitate to use landiolol in patients with low cardiac output. We would like to emphasize that careful use of landiolol should be considered in patients with refractory ES after myocardial infarction, although cardiac output is severely reduced.

[Electrical storm in the emergency room: clinical pathways]

In patients with structural heart disease, occurrence of an electrical storm (ES) is associated with increased mortality acutely and during medium term follow-up. Depending on the underlying heart disease and baseline type of arrhythmia, different clinical pathways have to be followed to reach sustained freedom from ventricular arrhythmia recurrences. Trigger elimination, sympathetic blockade (initially using betablockers and sedation), antiarrhythmic therapy with amiodarone and catheter ablation, treatment of heart failure and invasive hemodynamic support are cornerstones of the treatment. We present an algorithm which may help to organize an optimized treatment for each ES patient, implementing invasive treatment options like coronary angioplasty, catheter ablation and invasive circulatory support. Further studies are necessary to evaluate medium term outcome of such a structured therapy.

Efficacy and limitations of oral inotropic agents for the treatment of chronic heart failure

The heart failure guideline in Japan has stated the necessity of investigating the role of oral inotropic agents in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), which are clinically available only in Japan. A total of 1,846 consecutive patients with heart failure (mean: 69.5 years old, 1,279 males) treated at our institute from November 2009 to August 2010 were investigated retrospectively. Thirty-one patients (1.84%) who had taken oral inotropic agents (pimobendan 27, docarpamine 6, and denopamine 4) were extracted for this study, and the efficacy and limitations of the treatments were analyzed. Following the oral inotropic treatment, the NYHA functional class (P = 0.017), cardiothoracic ratio (P = 0.002) and B-type natriuretic peptide levels (P = 0.011) were significantly improved, and the number of emergency room (ER) visits (P < 0.001) and hospitalizations (P < 0.001) were significantly reduced. The nonsurviving patients (n = 7/31, 22.6%) were significantly older (P = 0.02) and tended to have a larger cardiothoracic ratio (P = 0.084) compared with the survivors. An absence of concomitant beta-blocker therapy was significantly associated with a worse prognosis (oneyear mortality 2/21 versus 5/10, log rank, P = 0.011). Oral inotropic agents brought about improvements in the clinical parameters of CHF and a reduction in ER visits and hospitalizations. However, concomitant beta-blocker therapy should be considered for patients receiving oral inotropic treatment.

The Impact of Catecholamines on Defibrillation Threshold in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of physiologic catecholamine concentrations on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators.

BACKGROUND

DFT is the minimum energy delivered by an implanted cardioverter defibrillator that successfully converts ventricular fibrillation. DFT testing is performed under conscious sedation. Since activities of daily living enhance sympathetic tone substantially over these nadir levels, it is important to explore the impact of catecholamines on DFT.

METHODS

In this double-blind study, we determined DFT by the step-down method. Patients (n = 50) were stratified by beta-blocker use and then randomized to a 7-minute infusion of epinephrine, norepinephrine, or placebo. After study infusion, DFT testing was repeated. Changes in DFT with different study medications were compared. Subgroup analyses of the effects of catecholamines on DFT, based on beta-blocker use, were also performed.

RESULTS

Norepinephrine reduced DFT from baseline measurements by 22.6% (P = 0.008). Neither epinephrine nor placebo impacted DFT (P = 0.999, P = 0.317, respectively). In the subgroup analyses, DFT was reduced with norepinephrine regardless of beta-blocker use, while epinephrine reduced DFT among those receiving beta-blockers. No change in DFT was observed in either of the placebo subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevation of plasma norepinephrine concentrations reduces the DFT, while elevations in epinephrine had no effect. Norepinephrine seems to reduce DFT regardless of beta-blocker therapy but epinephrine's effects are beta-blocker dependent.

Effect of beta-blocking therapy on outcome in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT)

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are known to reduce total mortality and sudden death in survivors of recent myocardial infarction. The effects of these agents in patients at high risk for sudden death with remote infarction are not clear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed the effect of beta-blockers on outcomes in 2096 patients with coronary artery disease, ejection fraction < or =40%, and spontaneous nonsustained ventricular tachycardia enrolled in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT). Forty-five percent of 702 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia and 35% of 1394 patients without inducible tachycardia were discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers. Patients treated with beta-blockers were younger and had higher ejection fractions, higher rates of recent angina, and more recent infarction. beta-Blockers were associated with decreased total mortality for the entire study population (5-year mortality 50% with beta-blockers versus 66% without beta-blockers; adjusted P=0.0001). The mortality benefit associated with beta-blockers was present in patients with and without inducible tachycardia, except those treated with implantable defibrillators. There was no significant effect of beta-blocker therapy on the rate of arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest (adjusted P=0.2344).

CONCLUSIONS

beta-Blocking agents have beneficial effects on survival of patients having characteristics of those enrolled in the MUSTT trial. These effects do not appear to be due to a specific antiarrhythmic effect of beta-blockers. The beneficial effects of beta-blockers were demonstrable in all patients except those treated with implantable defibrillators.

Comparison of dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias: Differences in presentation and outcome in the AVID registry

BACKGROUND

The etiology of structural heart disease in patients with life-threatening arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT]/ventricular fibrillation [VF]) may define clinical characteristics at presentation, may require that different therapies be administered, and may cause different mortality outcomes.

METHODS

In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry, baseline clinical characteristics, treatments instituted, and ultimate mortality outcomes from the National Death Index were obtained on 3117 patients seen at participating institutions with VT/VF, irrespective of participation in the randomized trial. By use of these data, 2268 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) were compared with 334 patients with dilated nonischemic cardiomyopathy (DCM).

RESULTS

The CAD group was 7 years older and had a higher percentage of males. DCM patients were more likely to be African American, have severely compromised left ventricular function (52% vs 39%), and have a history of congestive heart failure symptoms (62% vs 44%). Patients with CAD were more likely to be treated with b-blockers and calcium channel blockers and less likely to be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Patients with DCM were more likely to be treated with diuretics, warfarin, and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for VT/VF (54% vs 48% for CAD); the use of other antiarrhythmic therapies did not differ between the 2 groups. Two-year survival was not significantly different between the groups (76.6% [95% CI 74.6%-78.7%] vs 78.2% [95% CI 73.6%-82.9%]).

CONCLUSIONS

In AVID registry patients with VT/VF, demographic and clinical characteristics were different between patients with CAD and those with DCM. Despite these differences, overall survival was similar in these 2 groups.

Distinct gene-specific mechanisms of arrhythmia revealed by cardiac gene transfer of two long QT disease genes, HERG and KCNE1

The long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a heritable disorder that predisposes to sudden cardiac death. LQTS is caused by mutations in ion channel genes including HERG and KCNE1, but the precise mechanisms remain unclear. To clarify this situation we injected adenoviral vectors expressing wild-type or LQT mutants of HERG and KCNE1 into guinea pig myocardium. End points at 48-72 h included electrophysiology in isolated myocytes and electrocardiography in vivo. HERG increased the rapid component, I(Kr), of the delayed rectifier current, thereby accelerating repolarization, increasing refractoriness, and diminishing beat-to-beat action potential variability. Conversely, HERG-G628S suppressed I(Kr) without significantly delaying repolarization. Nevertheless, HERG-G628S abbreviated refractoriness and increased beat-to-beat variability, leading to early afterdepolarizations (EADs). KCNE1 increased the slow component of the delayed rectifier, I(Ks), without clear phenotypic sequelae. In contrast, KCNE1-D76N suppressed I(Ks) and markedly slowed repolarization, leading to frequent EADs and electrocardiographic QT prolongation. Thus, the two genes predispose to sudden death by distinct mechanisms: the KCNE1 mutant flagrantly undermines cardiac repolarization, and HERG-G628S subtly facilitates the genesis and propagation of premature beats. Our ability to produce electrocardiographic long QT in vivo with a clinical KCNE1 mutation demonstrates the utility of somatic gene transfer in creating genotype-specific disease models.

Treating electrical storm : sympathetic blockade versus advanced cardiac life support-guided therapy

BACKGROUND

Electrical storm (ES), defined as recurrent multiple ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes, often occurs in patients with recent myocardial infarction. Because treating ES according to the Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines yields a poor outcome, we evaluated the efficacy of sympathetic blockade in treating ES patients and compared their outcome with that of patients treated according to the ACLS guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (36 men, 13 women, mean age 57+/-10 years) who had ES associated with a recent myocardial infarction were separated into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 (n=27) received sympathetic blockade treatment: 6 left stellate ganglionic blockade, 7 esmolol, and 14 propranolol. Patients in group 2 (n=22) received antiarrhythmic medication as recommended by the ACLS guidelines. Patient characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The 1-week mortality rate was higher in group 2: 18 (82%) of the 22 patients died, all of refractory VF; 6 (22%) of the 27 group 1 patients died, 3 of refractory VF (P<0.0001). Patients who survived the initial ES event did well over the 1-year follow-up period: Overall survival in group 1 was 67%, compared with 5% in group 2 (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sympathetic blockade is superior to the antiarrhythmic therapy recommended by the ACLS guidelines in treating ES patients. Our study emphasizes the role of increased sympathetic activity in the genesis of ES. Sympathetic blockade-not class 1 antiarrhythmic drugs-should be the treatment of choice for ES.

Beta-blocker use and survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, alone or in combination with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, is associated with improved survival in persons with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT).

BACKGROUND

The ability of beta-blockers to alter the mortality of patients with VF or VT receiving contemporary medical management is not well defined.

METHODS

Survival of 1,016 randomized and 2,101 eligible, nonrandomized patients with VF or symptomatic VT followed in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial through December 31, 1996 was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

The 817 (28%) patients discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers had less ventricular dysfunction, fewer symptoms of heart failure and a different pattern of medication use compared with patients not receiving beta-blockers. Before adjustment for important prognostic variables, beta-blockade was not significantly associated with survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy. After adjustment, beta-blockade remained unrelated to survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with amiodarone alone (n = 1142; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.45; p = 0.85) or a defibrillator alone (n = 1347; adjusted RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; p = 0.58). In contrast, beta-blockade was independently associated with improved survival in eligible, nonrandomized patients who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 412; adjusted RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.88; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker use was independently associated with improved survival in patients with VF or symptomatic VT who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, but a protective effect was not prominent in patients already receiving amiodarone or a defibrillator.

Beta blockers: evidence versus wishful thinking

Catecholamines and ischemia play an important role in the induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Beta blockers antagonize the effect of catecholamines and have anti-ischemic properties. Several controlled studies performed in the early 1980s in patients after myocardial infarction have shown that beta-blocker therapy clearly decreases sudden and nonsudden cardiac death. Despite the lack of recent randomized trials, data from uncontrolled studies suggest that the beneficial effect of beta blockers is still present in the thrombolytic era. Thus, it is incomprehensible that today in the United States and in most parts of Europe, < 40% of post-myocardial infarction patients are treated with beta blockers. Even in patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardias (VTs) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), clinical studies indicate that beta blockers improve survival. Thus, even in the thrombolytic era, beta blockers should be used as a basic therapy in patients who are at risk of sudden cardiac death.

beta blocker treatment and other prognostic variables in patients with clinical evidence of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction: evidence from the AIRE study

OBJECTIVES

To examine clinical outcomes associated with optional beta blockade in a population of patients with evidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

Data from the acute infarction ramipril efficacy (AIRE) study were analysed retrospectively. At baseline 22.3% of the patients were receiving a beta blocker. To minimise confounding, beta blocker and diuretic treatments, presence of clinical signs of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, and 16 other baseline clinical variables were simultaneously entered in a multivariate Cox regression model. In addition, the same analysis was repeated separately within a high and a low risk group of patients, as defined according to the need for diuretic treatment.

RESULTS

beta Blocker treatment was an independent predictor of reduced risk of total mortality (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0. 48 to 0.90) and progression to severe heart failure (0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83) for the entire study population. There were similar findings in high risk patients requiring diuretics (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86; and 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

beta Blocker treatment is associated with improved outcomes in patients with clinical evidence of mild to moderate heart failure after myocardial infarction. Most importantly, high risk patients with persistent heart failure appear to benefit at least as much as lower risk patients with transient heart failure.

Health outcomes associated with beta-blocker and diltiazem treatment of unstable angina

OBJECTIVE

We compared long-term health outcomes associated with beta-adrenergic blocking agents and diltiazem treatment for unstable angina.

BACKGROUND

No long-term data have been published comparing these two antianginal treatments in this setting.

METHODS

Eligible veterans were discharged from the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division, between October 1989 and September 1995 with an unstable angina diagnosis and were prescribed monotherapy beta-blocker or diltiazem treatment at discharge. Medication data were collected from medical records and computerized VAPSHCS outpatient pharmacy files. Follow-up death and coronary artery disease rehospitalization data were collected through 1996. Proportional hazards regression compared survival among diltiazem and beta-blocker users, controlling for patient characteristics with propensity scores.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-seven veterans (24% on beta-blockers, 76% on diltiazem) were included in this study. There were 54 (22%) deaths during an average follow-up of 51 months. After propensity score adjustment, there was no difference in risk of death comparing diltiazem to beta-blocker treatment (hazards ratios [HR] 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 2.4). Among Washington residents (n=207), there were 146 (71%) coronary artery disease rehospitalizations or deaths during follow-up. After adjustment, there was a nonsignificant increase in risk of rehospitalization or death associated with diltiazem use (HR 1.4; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.4). For both analyses, similar risks were found among veterans without relative contraindications to beta-blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no survival benefit of diltiazem over beta-blocker treatment for unstable angina in this cohort of veterans.

Importance of beta blockade in the therapy of serious ventricular arrhythmias

Beta blockers have traditionally been considered relatively poor antiarrhythmic agents for patients with ventricular arrhythmias. This view is based on the observations that beta blockers are less effective in suppressing spontaneous ventricular ectopy or inducible ventricular arrhythmias than are the class I and class III agents. However, there are convincing data that beta blockers can have a clinically important antiarrhythmic effect and prevent arrhythmic and sudden death. Beta blockers have multiple potential effects that can contribute to a therapeutic antiarrhythmic action, including an antiadrenergic/vagomimetic effect, a decrease in ventricular fibrillation threshold, and prevention of a catecholamine reversal of concomitant class I/III antiarrhythmic drug effects. Postinfarction trials, recent congestive heart failure studies, and observations in patients who are at risk for sustained ventricular arrhythmias all suggest a potent antiarrhythmic effect of beta blockade.

Sotalol for ventricular tachyarrhythmias: beta-blocking and class III contributions, and relative efficacy versus class I drugs after prior drug failure. ESVEM Investigators. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring

In the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, d,l-sotalol was associated with a lower arrhythmia recurrence and mortality than class I antiarrhythmic drugs. To further evaluate the relative efficacy of d,I-sotalol compared with class I drugs, and to assess the relative importance of its class II (beta-blocking) and class III effects, 6-year arrhythmia recurrence and mortality in patients receiving sotalol were compared with those in patients receiving class I drugs, subdivided according to whether they also received coadministered beta blockers. Relative efficacy was also determined for sotalol and for class I drugs as stratified by the presence/absence of prior drug failure. Arrhythmia recurrence was lower for the 84 patients receiving sotalol than for patients given class I agents with (n = 28) (p = 0.008) or without (n = 184) (p = 0.001) alpha beta blocker. Mortality was lower for patients taking sotalol than for those given a class I drug without alpha beta blocker (p = 0.034), but similar (p = 0.835) if alpha beta blocker was also administered. In contrast to class I drugs, which had lower efficacy rates when prior drug trials had failed, sotalol maintained its efficacy despite prior drug failures preceding or during the ESVEM trial. Both class II and III actions in the ESVEM trial were important to the clinical superiority of sotalol in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Beta adrenergic blockade in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation

The value of beta-blockers as antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with sustained VT or VF has received only little attention. This article summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding the identification of patients with sustained VT or VF with the highest benefit of beta-blockade. The antiarrhythmic mechanisms of beta-blockade and its efficacy as single or adjuvant therapy in patients with sustained VT or VF are reviewed. Current insights into the effects of beta-blockade in patients suffering from VT, in particular in the setting of heart failure, are discussed and future directions are considered.