Ventricular Arrhythmia Inducibility Predicts Subsequent ICD Activation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients: A DEFINITE Substudy

Prognostic value of noninvasive programmed stimulation in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) offers an opportunity to study inducibility of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) by performing noninvasive programmed ventricular stimulation (NIPS). Whether NIPS can predict future arrhythmic events or mortality in patients with primary prevention ICD, has not yet been examined.

Methods

From the NIPS-ICD study (ClinicalTrials ID: NCT02373306) 41 consecutive patients (34 males, age 64 ± 11 years, 76% ischemic cardiomyopathy [ICM]) had ICD for primary prevention indication. Patients underwent NIPS using a standardized protocol of up to three premature extrastimuli at 600, 500 and 400 ms drive cycle lengths. NIPS was classified as positive if sustained VT or VF was induced. The study endpoint was occurrence of sustained VT/VF during the follow-up.

Results

At baseline NIPS, VT/VF was induced in 8 (20%) ICM patients. During the 5-year follow-up, the VT/VF occurred in 7 (17%) patients, all with ICM. The difference between NIPS-inducible versus NIPS-noninducible patients regarding VT/VF occurrence did not meet statistical significance (38% vs. 12%, log rank test p = .11). After a 5-year follow-up, the mortality rate was significantly higher in patients who had VT/VF induced at NIPS versus no VT/VF at NIPS (38% vs. 12%, p = .043). The occurrence of a composite endpoint consisting of VT/VF recurrence or death in patients with ICM was also most frequent in the NIPS-inducible group (75% vs. 35%, p = .037).

Conclusions

Inducibility of VT/VF during NIPS in ICM patients with primary prevention ICD is associated with higher mortality and higher incidence of composite endpoint consisting of death or VT/VF during a long-term observation.

Programmed ventricular stimulation in structural heart disease: Implications of patterns of ventricular arrhythmias induced to long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Currently available data gives some credence to utility of VT induction studies in patients with stable ischemic cardiomyopathy, there are some unresolved questions as to define sensitive threshold for low-risk and the prognostic relevance of ill sustained or non-specific tachycardia on induction study. We evaluated potential ability of VT inducibility to predict likelihood of SHD (Structural heart disease) patients for subsequent arrhythmic or adverse cardiac events.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with syncope/documented arrhythmia who had VT induction done were included and patients with VT storm, ACS,uncontrolled HF were excluded. We studied in 4 groups-monomorphic VT, sustained polymorphicVT, ill sustainedVT/VF and no VT/VF induced. The primary-endpoints were - Sudden death, all-cause mortality and secondary-endpoints were - MACE (AICD shock, death,HF, recurrence of VT). We screened 411 patients and included 169 within inducible (n = 79) and non-inducible group (n = 90).

RESULTS

There were a higher number of patients with coronary artery disease, LV dysfunction, patients on amiodarone in inducible group and no difference in usage of beta-blockers. Recurrence of VT, composite of MACE was significantly higher in inducible group (p < 0.05). Mortality was not different in 3 groups compared with no VT/VF group. We found that monomorphic VT group had significantly higher MACE as compared to others and also predicted recurrence of VT and AICD shock and showed a trend towards significance for prediction of mortality. Inducible patients on AICD had mortality similar to non-inducible group.

CONCLUSION

Induction of monomorphicVT/polymorphicVT with ≤3extrastimuli is associated with a higher number of MACE events on follow up. Induction of monomorphicVT predicts recurrence of VT/ICD shock.

Beyond Ejection Fraction: Novel Clinical Approaches Towards Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Stratification in Patients with Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) therapy is indicated for patients at risk for sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The most commonly used risk stratification algorithms use Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) to determine which patients qualify for ICD therapy, even though LVEF is a better marker of total mortality than ventricular tachyarrhythmias mortality. This review evaluates imaging tools and novel biomarkers proposed for better risk stratifying arrhythmic substrate, thereby identifying optimal ICD therapy candidates.

Noninvasive programmed stimulation in the setting of ventricular tachycardia catheter ablation

In the setting of catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT), invasive programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is considered an important tool to assess the (residual) inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias and determine the acute success of the procedure. In patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, noninvasive programmed stimulation via implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads can be an alternative to the invasive PVS with intracardiac catheters. The advantages of noninvasive programmed stimulation include preprocedure planning of the electrophysiology procedure to ensure optimal conditions for successful catheter ablation of VT. Following the procedure, noninvasive programmed stimulation has been shown to be used as a guide for repeat early ablation, to offer better programming of ICD, to offer prognostic value regarding the VT recurrence, and to guide antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The noninvasive nature of noninvasive programmed stimulation makes it an attractive alternative to PVS in patients with ICD who have not undergone catheter ablation of VT to obtain prognostic value regarding the occurrence of VT.

Arrhythmic risk stratification in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy beyond ejection fraction

Sudden cardiac death and arrhythmia-related events in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) have been significantly reduced over the last couple of decades as a result of evidence-based pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. Nevertheless, the arrhythmic stratification in patients with NICM remains extremely challenging, and the simple indication based on left ventricular ejection fraction appears to be insufficient. Therefore, clinicians need to go beyond the current criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the direction of a multiparametric evaluation of arrhythmic risk. Several parameters for arrhythmic risk stratification, ranging from electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, imaging-derived and genetic markers, are crucial for proper arrhythmic risk stratification and a multiparametric evaluation of risk in patients with NICM. In particular, integration of cardiac magnetic resonance parameters (mostly late gadolinium enhancement) and specific genetic information (ie, presence of LMNA, PLN, FLNC mutations) appears fundamental for proper implementation of the current arrhythmic risk stratification. Finally, a novel approach focused on both arrhythmic risk and prediction of left ventricular reverse remodelling during follow-up might be useful for effective multiparametric and dynamic arrhythmic risk stratification in NICM. In the future, a complete and integrated evaluation might be mandatory to implement arrhythmic risk prediction in patients with NICM and to discriminate the competing risk between heart failure-related events and life-threatening arrhythmias.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

Prognostic value of noninvasive programmed stimulation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) offers an opportunity to examine vulnerability to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) by performing noninvasive programmed ventricular stimulation (NIPS). Whether NIPS can predict VT/VF recurrences has not yet been established.

PURPOSE

To examine the predictive value of NIPS for identification of patients with VT/VF recurrences.

METHODS

The study group consisted of consecutive 105 ICD recipients included in the prospective NIPS-ICD study (ClinicalTrials ID: NCT02373306) (88 males, age 65 ± 11 years). The patients underwent NIPS using the protocol up to three premature extrastimuli at 600-500- and 400-ms drive cycle lengths. The endpoint of NIPS was induction of sustained VT or VF or completion of the protocol.

RESULTS

VT/VF was induced in 29 (27.6%) patients. During a 12-month follow-up NIPS-inducible patients had significantly more frequently appropriate ICD therapy than noninducible patients (17% vs 4%, P = 0.023). NIPS-induced VT/VF had a sensitivity of 63%, specificity of 75%, positive predictive value of 17%, and negative predictive value of 96% for identification of patients with future VT/VF. Apart from NIPS, age ≥ 65 years, QRS duration, treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme, history of coronary artery bypass grafting, history of VT/VF prior to NIPS, and prior appropriate ICD therapy were also associated with VT/VF recurrences. Multivariate analysis showed that, together with QRS duration, NIPS result was an independent predictor of future VT/VF. Predictive value of NIPS was significantly higher in ischemic than nonischemic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

NIPS result is associated with future VT/VF. Noninducibility at NIPS identifies those patients with high accuracy who will have uneventful follow-up.

Sudden death risk stratification in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy using old and new tools: a clinical challenge

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification for sudden cardiac death in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) remains a clinical challenge. Areas covered: Currently, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), severity of heart failure symptoms according to NYHA classification, and morphology and duration of the QRS complex guide device management in these patients with implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Recently, the results of a randomized trial stirred some controversy regarding the utility of ICD in NIDCM patients, however, a subsequent meta-analysis confirmed prior findings of the survival-prolonging benefit of device therapy. Newer risk markers, like late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) detecting myocardial fibrosis, are encouraging in improving risk stratification in these patients. Furthermore, resurgence of an old tool, the electrophysiology study (EPS), and technical advances in genetics in identifying high-risk familial NIDCM, appear promising in this direction. Expert commentary: Based on old and new tools, a more individualized approach may be applied in NIDCM patients, whereby CMR, EPS and genetics may provide further guidance, particularly in patients with LVEF>35%. These issues are herein reviewed and a practical algorithm is proposed for risk stratification and device implantation in NIDCM patients with LVEF below and above 35%.

Sudden cardiac death markers in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy

Heart failure is an increasingly prevalent disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. In 30-40% of patients, the etiology is non-ischemic. In this group of patients, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) prevents sudden death and decreases total mortality. However, due to burden of cost, the fact that many ICD patients will never need any therapy, and possible complications involved in implant and follow-up, the device should not be implanted in every patient with non-ischemic heart failure. There is an urgent need to adequately identify patients with highest sudden death risk, in whom the implant is most cost-effective. In the present paper, the authors discuss current available tests for risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in patients with non-ischemic heart failure.

Non-invasive programmed stimulation to identify high-risk patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillator (the NIPS-ICD study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a widely used and effective therapy, which reduces the risk of cardiac death in many cardiac diseases, both implanted for secondary and primary prevention. However, recurrent arrhythmias and ICD discharges have adverse prognostic significance. Additional parameters that would identify patients who are at increased risk of arrhythmias and appropriate ICD interventions would be of clinical value. Modern ICDs are relatively complex devices with a number of functions, including the possibility to perform noninvasive programmed stimulation (NIPS) with an implanted electrode located in the right ventricle.

Methods/Design

The aim of the study is to evaluate the usefulness of NIPS in determining the likelihood of life-threatening arrhythmic events in patients with ICD. The study will include 150 consecutive patients with an ICD implanted both for primary and secondary prevention, regardless of etiology, who are followed in the outpatient clinic of our center and do not meet the exclusion criteria. A 12-step St. George’s Hospital NIPS protocol using ICD will be performed. The endpoint is to induce sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VT lasting more than 30 seconds or hemodynamically unstable VT/VF) or the end of the protocol. In case of serious and/or hemodynamically unstable heart rhythm disorders resistant to treatment with a low-energy antiarrhythmic pacing (ATP), the patient receives a short-term intravenous general anesthesia, and internal or external defibrillation is performed. Outpatient follow-up will be conducted during the pre-scheduled ICD control visits. An analysis of records of a registered memory device will be collected, a patient will be interviewed, and physical examination will be carried out. The follow-ups will be held every 3 months for 1 year. The primary endpoint of the follow-up will be appropriate intervention of ICD or sudden cardiac (arrhythmic) death; the secondary, appropriate ICD intervention, or death from cardiovascular causes; and the tertiary, appropriate ICD intervention, death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

Discussion

It is expected that appropriate ICD interventions during follow-up will occur more often in patients who had sustained ventricular arrhythmias induced during NIPS.

Clinical trials registry

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02373306, date of registration: 26 February 2015.

Therapy for ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease: a multifaceted challenge

The unpredictable nature and potentially catastrophic consequences of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) have obligated physicians to search for therapies to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). At present, a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been used as a risk factor to predict SCD in patients with structural heart disease and has been consistently adopted as the predominant, and sometimes sole, indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Although the ICD remains the mainstay life-saving therapy for SCD, it does not modify the underlying arrhythmic substrate and may be associated with adverse effects from perioperative and long-term complications. Preventative pharmacological therapy has been associated with limited benefits, but anti-arrhythmic medications have significant side effects profiles. Catheter ablation of VAs has greatly evolved over the last few decades. Substrate mapping in sinus rhythm has allowed haemodynamically unstable VAs to be successfully treated. Both LVEF as an indication for ICD therapy and electro-anatomical mapping for substrate modification identify static components of underlying myocardial arrhythmogenicity. They do not take into account dynamic factors, such as the mechanisms of arrhythmia initiation and development of new anatomical or functional lines of block, leading to the initiation and maintenance of VAs. Dynamic factors are difficult to evaluate and consequently are not routinely used in clinical practice to guide treatment. However, progress in the treatment of VAs should consider and integrate dynamic factors with static components to fully characterize the myocardial arrhythmic substrate.

[Risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in dilated cardiomyopathy. Programmed ventricular stimulation]

There is a strong correlation between clinical presentation and results of the electrophysiological study (EPS) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Patients with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or syncope often have inducible VT in contrast to patients who have no history of arrhythmias or syncope. Therefore, the EPS is rather not useful for risk stratification but for planning of an adjuvant antiarrhythmic or ablation therapy. This is also true for patients with frequent ventricular extrasystole or nonsustained VT in whom VT may aggravate heart failure. An EP study may still be useful to differentiate between syncope of bradycardic or tachycardic origin.

Stratification of the risk of sudden death in nonischemic heart failure

Despite significant therapeutic advancements, heart failure remains a highly prevalent clinical condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In 30%-40% patients, the etiology of heart failure is nonischemic. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is capable of preventing sudden death and decreasing total mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. However, a significant number of patients receiving ICD do not receive any kind of therapy during follow-up. Moreover, considering the situation in Brazil and several other countries, ICD cannot be implanted in all patients with nonischemic heart failure. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify patients at an increased risk of sudden death because these would benefit more than patients at a lower risk, despite the presence of heart failure in both risk groups. In this study, the authors review the primary available methods for the stratification of the risk of sudden death in patients with nonischemic heart failure.

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) has been recorded in a wide range of conditions, from apparently healthy individuals to patients with significant heart disease. In the absence of heart disease, the prognostic significance of NSVT is debatable. When detected during exercise, and especially at recovery, NSVT indicates increased cardiovascular mortality within the next decades. In trained athletes, NSVT is considered benign when suppressed by exercise. In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, NSVT occurring beyond 48 h after admission indicates an increased risk of cardiac and sudden death, especially when associated with myocardial ischemia. In acute myocardial infarction, in-hospital NSVT has an adverse prognostic significance when detected beyond the first 13 to 24 h. In patients with prior myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion and beta-blockers, NSVT is not an independent predictor of long-term mortality when other covariates such as left ventricular ejection fraction are taken into account. In patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and most probably genetic channelopathies, NSVT carries prognostic significance, whereas its independent prognostic ability in ischemic heart failure and dilated cardiomyopathy has not been established. The management of patients with NSVT is aimed at treating the underlying heart disease.

[Limits and scopes of invasive risk stratification. Do we still need programmed ventricular stimulation?]

Patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ICM), dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM), or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVCM) carry a high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are most often the cause of SCD, which can be treated with internal cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, a great proportion of these high-risk patients will never experience potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias, and as such will never be in need of these devices. Given the risks, inconvenience, and costs of ICDs, markers that adequately stratify patients according to their risk of SCD are needed. Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) has long been used to identify the patients' risk of SCD. However, the prognostic ability of PVS is only modest and the negative predictive value is poor. As far as patients with ICM are concerned, recent data from the MUSTT and MADIT II trials demonstrate that in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 40%, inducibility by PVS can help to identify patients who are at particularly increased risk of SCD. The value of PVS in patients with DCM, HCM, and ARVCM for risk stratification of SCD is less clear and the available data even more limited. In these patients, the inducibility of ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not clearly correlate with VT/VF (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation) risk, and more importantly, noninducibility does not portend good prognosis. The current German guidelines appreciate these uncertainties of PVS for risk stratification with class IIb recommendations in certain patients with ICM, HCM or ARVCM. In the future, combining the results of invasive PVS with other noninvasive parameters may improve its prognostic value. Furthermore, expanding the role of PVS to guiding therapeutic ablation of ventricular arrhythmias may influence patient's future risk of SCD.