Definition of predicted effective antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias by the electrophysiologic study approach: randomized comparison of patient response criteria

Programmed Ventricular Stimulation: Risk Stratification and Guiding Antiarrhythmic Therapies

Electrophysiologic testing with programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) has been utilized to induce ventricular tachycardia (VT), thereby improving risk stratification for patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and determining the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic therapies, especially catheter ablation. A variety of procedural aspects can be modified during PVS in order to alter the sensitivity and specificity of the test including the addition of multiple baseline pacing cycle lengths, extrastimuli, and pacing locations. The definition of a positive result is also critically important, which has varied from exclusively sustained monomorphic VT (>30 seconds) to any ventricular arrhythmia regardless of morphology. In this review, we discuss the history of PVS and evaluate its role in sudden cardiac death risk stratification in a variety of patient populations. We propose an approach to future investigations that will capitalize on the unique ability to vary the sensitivity and specificity of this test. We then discuss the application of PVS during and following catheter ablation. The strategies that have been utilized to improve the efficacy of intraprocedural PVS are highlighted during a discussion of the limitations of this probabilistic strategy. The role of noninvasive programmed stimulation is also reviewed in predicting recurrent VT and informing management decisions including repeat ablations, modifications in antiarrhythmic drugs, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming. Based on the available evidence and guidelines, we propose an approach to future investigations that will allow clinicians to optimize the use of PVS for risk stratification and assessment of therapeutic efficacy.

Role of electrophysiologic study (EPS)-guided preventive therapy for the management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT/VF) are 1 of the most important factors determining the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Although priority is given to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death, electrophysiologic-study (EPS)-guided preventive therapy could be important for reducing the number of cardiac events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 864 patients with a history of HF, an EPS was performed in 168 and 121 had inducible VT/VF. Under the basic therapy of an ICD, additional catheter ablation was attempted for 95 of 124 monomorphic VT foci in 74 patients, and 78 of the VT were successfully ablated. The prognoses were compared among 5 patient groups with different results for the EPS and catheter ablation: (1) success group (n=43), (2) failure group (n=15), (3) not attempted group (n=16), (4) VF group (n=47), and (5) no inducible VT/VF group. During a follow-up period of 31+/-22 months, the incidence of VT/VF was lower in the success and no inducible VT/VF groups than in the other groups (p=0.0018), although a significant difference was not observed for the total deaths.

CONCLUSION

EPS-guided preventive therapy using an ICD and catheter ablation can be useful, at least for the reduction of arrhythmic events in patients with HF.

Clinical usefulness of electrophysiologic study (EPS)-guided risk stratification for life-threatening arrhythmia in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachyarrhythmia is one of the most important factors determining the prognosis of patients with heart failure and sudden death can be observed even during stable therapy controlling clinical heart failure. In this study, the usefulness of electrophysiologic study (EPS) for the prediction of a future arrhythmic event was evaluated in patients with heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The patient population consisted of 474 patients with a history of clinical heart failure but without an episode of spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF). A Holter ECG was performed in all patients, and 177 of the 474 patients underwent EPS because of a recording of nonsustained VT (NSVT, > 5 beats). When sustained VT/VF was inducible in EPS, the patient was assigned to implantation of a defibrillation device. The patients were divided into 3 groups, ie, 1) no NSVT (n = 297), 2) NSVT + no inducible VT/VF (n = 134), and 3) NSVT + inducible VT/VF (n = 43), and were followed-up for > 12 months. All patients were followed-up under standard therapy for heart failure. There were no significant differences in basic clinical characteristics and therapies among the 3 groups. During the follow-up period of 32 +/- 18 months, 56/474 patients suffered a VT/VF episode, ie, 21/297 in no NSVT, 14/134 in NSVT + no inducible VT/VF, and 21/43 in NSVT + inducible VT/VF patients (P = 0.032). All patients were rescued from sudden death among patients with an implanted defibrillator, but 11 patients without a defibrillator died.

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure, future arrhythmic events could be predicted by EPS and Holter ECG. EPS-guided risk stratification seems to be useful in managing patients with heart failure.

Clinical significance of the electrophysiologic study (EPS)-guided therapy for the secondary prevention of ventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Although electrophysiologic study (EPS) is one of the most reliable methods for selecting preventive therapy for patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), VT may recur during EPS-guided effective therapy; therefore, the importance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been emphasized. In this study, the prognoses of VT patients were evaluated to clarify the importance of EPS-guided therapy for the secondary prevention of VT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 99 consecutive patients with a history of sustained VT, which was inducible in EPS. The VT induction protocol used 1-3 extrastimuli and rapid ventricular pacing at 2 right ventricular sites and included additional isoproterenol infusion. ICD implantation was applied to all patients with an episode of hemodynamically unstable VT, regardless of the result of preventive therapy. For preventive therapy, an antiarrhythmic drug and/or catheter ablation were selected, and they were defined as being effective in the EPS-guided therapy when the induction of VT was completely prevented. When no therapy was effective for prevention, an antiarrhythmic drug was prescribed under ICD implantation. During the follow-up period of 19+/-20 months, VT recurred in 17 of 32 patients (53%) in the ineffective group and in 10 of 67 patients (15%) in the effective group (p=0.0001). The therapies used in the effective group were class I antiarrhythmic drug in 9, class III in 15, and catheter ablation in 35 patients. Between the patients with and without VT recurrence, there were no significant differences in the left ventricular ejection fraction and the maximum number of repetitive ventricular responses that remained in VT induction in EPS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although VT may recur in up to 15% of patients with EPS-guided effective therapy, the recurrence rate was significantly reduced in comparison to that in the ineffective group. EPS-guided therapy may be useful to reduce the clinical recurrence of VT, as well as the action of ICD.

Anti-arrhythmic efficacy of nifekalant hydrochloride, a pure class III anti-arrhythmic agent, in patients with healed myocardial infarction and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia

In recent clinical trials, class III anti-arrhythmic drugs were found to reduce arrhythmic deaths in patients after myocardial infarction. The purpose of this study was to assess the electrophysiologic properties and anti-arrhythmic efficacy for inducible sustained ventricular tachycardias (VTs) of the pure class III agent nifekalant hydrochloride (MS-551) in comparison with those of procainamide. Programmed ventricular stimulation of up to three extra stimuli was performed for induction of VTs. Effective refractory period (ERP) of the ischemic zone and normal zone was also measured before and after nifekalant. Nifekalant and procainamide suppressed sustained VT induction in four of 15 patients and in six of 15 patients, respectively (p = NS). Sinus cycle length, PR interval, and QRS duration were not changed, but QT and QTc intervals were significantly increased with nifekalant (p < 0.01). Ventricular ERP also increased, whereas there were no significant differences in the increase of ERP between the ischemic and normal zones. The suppression of VT induction did not correlate with the changes in QT, QTc, and ERP after nifekalant administration. There were no significant differences in induced VT cycle length at baseline study between responders and nonresponders to nifekalant. Reverse use dependence was not apparent on review of electrophysiologic parameters. Neither proarrhythmic events nor hemodynamic disturbances occurred after nifekalant administration. It was concluded that nifekalant could be used safely and showed comparable effectiveness to procainamide for the suppression of VT induction.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): drug testing and as-treated analysis

OBJECTIVES

Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

METHODS

We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353).

RESULTS

"Effective" antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term "effective" was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43%), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88%). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.

Role of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death: An Evidence-Based Review

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for more than half of all cardiac deaths occurring each year in the United States. Although it has several causes, patients at greatest risk are those with coronary artery disease and impaired left ventricular function, heart failure secondary to ischemia or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, and survivors of cardiac arrest. The presence of asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, positive signal-averaged electrocardiogram (ECG), low heart rate variability index, or inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation increases the risk. In primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease, beta-blockers reduced both total mortality and SCD, whereas class I antiarrhythmic drugs, especially class IC, increased mortality. Among class III agents, d,l-sotalol and dofetilide have a neutral effect on mortality, whereas d-sotalol increases mortality. Amiodarone has a neutral effect on total and cardiac mortality but does reduce the risk of arrhythmic death and cardiac arrest. Three primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease were conducted with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Patients with low ejection fractions (EFs), asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, and inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation had significant reductions in total, cardiac, and arrhythmic death with ICDs compared with either no drug therapy or conventional antiarrhythmic agents. The ICDs did not reduce mortality in patients with low EFs and a positive signal-averaged ECG undergoing coronary bypass graft. In those with heart failure, beta-blockers reduced total and SCD mortality, but dofetilide and amiodarone had a neutral effect on mortality. In the secondary prevention of SCD, antiarrhythmic drugs alone generally are not thought to improve survival. In three trials in patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, or survivors of SCD, ICDs reduced cardiac and arrhythmic mortality. Total mortality, however, was significantly reduced in only one of these trials. The role of antiarrhythmic drugs in secondary prevention of SCD is limited to patients in whom ICD is inappropriate or in combination with ICD. Antiarrhythmics can be given selectively with ICDs to decrease episodes of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation to reduce ICD discharges, to suppress episodes of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia that trigger ICD discharges, to slow the rate of ventricular tachycardia to increase hemodynamic stability, to allow effective antitachycardia pacing, or to suppress supraventricular arrhythmias.

A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators

BACKGROUND

Empirical antiarrhythmic therapy has not reduced mortality among patients with coronary artery disease and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. Previous studies have suggested that antiarrhythmic therapy guided by electrophysiologic testing might reduce the risk of sudden death.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy would reduce the risk of sudden death among patients with coronary artery disease, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less, and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients in whom sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced by programmed stimulation were randomly assigned to receive either antiarrhythmic therapy, including drugs and implantable defibrillators, as indicated by the results of electrophysiologic testing, or no antiarrhythmic therapy. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and beta-adrenergic-blocking agents were administered if the patients could tolerate them.

RESULTS

A total of 704 patients with inducible, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Five-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of the incidence of the primary end point of cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia were 25 percent among those receiving electrophysiologically guided therapy and 32 percent among the patients assigned to no antiarrhythmic therapy (relative risk, 0.73; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.99), representing a reduction in risk of 27 percent). The five-year estimates of overall mortality were 42 percent and 48 percent, respectively (relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.64 to 1.01). The risk of cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia among the patients who received treatment with defibrillators was significantly lower than that among the patients discharged without receiving defibrillator treatment (relative risk, 0.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001). Neither the rate of cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia nor the overall mortality rate was lower among the patients assigned to electrophysiologically guided therapy and treated with antiarrhythmic drugs than among the patients assigned to no antiarrhythmic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy with implantable defibrillators, but not with antiarrhythmic drugs, reduces the risk of sudden death in high-risk patients with coronary disease.

Electrophysiologic parameters to predict clinical recurrence of ventricular tachycardia in patients under electrophysiologic study-guided effective pharmacological therapy

Although an electrophysiologic study (EPS) is the most reliable method for selecting the treatment for a patient with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), VT recurrence may occur even during EPS-guided effective therapy. Electrophysiologic parameters were compared between patients with and without arrhythmic events under EPS-guided effective therapy to identify the predictive parameters of VT recurrence during the clinical course. The study population consisted of 77 consecutive patients with sustained VT who were receiving long-term pharmacological therapy that was demonstrated to be effective by the EPS assessment. The VT induction protocol employed 1-3 extrastimuli and rapid ventricular pacing at 2 right ventricular sites and 1 left ventricular site, and isoproterenol was infused when VT was not induced. To determine the 'effective' antiarrhythmic drug, all sustained ventricular arrhythmias had to be prevented during the whole induction protocol, but repetitive ventricular responses (RVR) were allowed to remain for up to 5 beats when they were in the same QRS configurations as the clinical VT and up to 12 beats when they were in polymorphic QRS configurations. The effective refractory periods (ERPs) at the 3 ventricular pacing sites and their difference (i.e., ERP-dispersion) and the maximum number of RVR beats were evaluated in an EPS during the control state and at the time of drug assessment. In the comparison of patients with and without VT recurrence, there was no significant difference in clinical characteristics or ERPs, but the deltaERP-dispersion (i.e., the increase in ERP-dispersion caused by the antiarrhythmic drug) and the maximum number of RVRs were significantly smaller in the group of patients without VT recurrence (deltaERP-dis, -3+/-8 vs. 6+/-12, p = 0.0027; maxRVR, 3+/-3 vs. 5+/-4, p = 0.0160). The VT recurrence rate was significantly lower in the patients with deltaERP-dis < or =0 or maxRVR<6 in comparison with the others (p = 0.01 14 and p = 0.0360). Patients with VT recurrence showed greater deltaERP-disp and a longer duration of RVRs at the time of drug assessment in comparison with the patients without VT recurrence. The prognosis of patients under EPS-guided therapy may be improved by the use of stricter criteria for drug assessment in the EPS, although this may decrease the number of drug responders determined in the EPS.

Sudden Cardiac Death

Great strides have been made in the approach to the management of sudden cardiac death. Patients who have been successfully resuscitated from an episode of sudden cardiac death are at high risk of recurrence. Much larger groups of patients who have not had episodes of sudden cardiac death are also at substantial risk for this event, however. Because the survival rates associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are dismal, these high-risk populations must be targeted for prophylaxis. Beta-blockers have been shown to be an effective pharmacologic therapy in patients who have had myocardial infarction and, most recently, in patients with congestive heart failure. When possible, these agents should be used in these populations. No class I or class III antiarrhythmic drugs, with the possible exception of amiodarone, have been shown to have efficacy as prophylactic agents for the reduction of mortality in these populations. In patients who have hemodynamically significant sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias or an aborted episode of sudden cardiac death, the current therapy of choice is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). For prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death in patients who have not had a previous event, several approaches may be considered. Currently, the best therapeutic approach for prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death seems to be the ICD; however, use of this device can be justified only in patients at substantial risk of sudden cardiac death. Defining the high-risk populations that will benefit from ICDs is critical in managing the problem of sudden cardiac death.