Predictors of outcome in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Impact of advanced age on survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AIMS

Given the selectivity of clinical trial patients and meager representation of elderly in the major implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) randomized trials (<25%), whether such data apply to elderly patients overall is unclear. The purpose of our study is to understand the influence of age on mortality after ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 502 consecutive patients receiving ICDs from 1993 to 2003 at a single university hospital. The primary predictor was patient age, categorized as <65, 65-75, and >75 years at ICD implantation. The primary outcome was time to death. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Median survival after ICD implantation was 5.3 years among subjects >75 years, less than half that of the youngest group. After adjusting for potential confounders, compared with subjects <65 years of age, patients >75 years [hazard ratio (HR), 4.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-7.9; P < 0.001] and those 65-75 years (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.8; P < 0.001) were at greater risk of death. Increased age was associated with higher total, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality (all P <or= 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Age at ICD implantation is strongly and independently associated with mortality. Age should be considered among potential co-morbidities in anticipating survival of the elderly patient prior to ICD implantation.

Intraoperative testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: how much is enough?

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is considered a standard and required practice at the time of implantation. How much testing, if any in some cases, should be performed, however, remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Included in this retrospective analysis were 835 patients (77% men; age 65 +/- 13 years) who received transvenous ICDs between January 1996 and December 2003. One hundred twenty-nine (15.5%) had intraoperative defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, 503 (60.2%) had limited defibrillation safety margin testing, and 203 (24.3%) had no defibrillation testing. We compared the outcome (success of ICD therapies against spontaneous VT/VF events and survival) of the three groups of patients, who in some respects had important clinical differences. The success of the first delivered shocks against VT/VF was similar for DFT (91%), safety margin testing (91%), and no-testing (92%) groups; and the second shocks terminated the remaining episodes in all three groups. Sudden-death-free survival rates were similar in the three groups, however, the overall long-term survival rate was significantly lower in the no-testing group (58%) than in the DFT (74%) and safety margin testing (69%) groups (P < 0.0005). Multivariate analysis found no strong predictors of sudden death, but there were several independent predictors of overall mortality including lack of ICD testing (HR: 2.031, CI: 1.253-3.290, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this select patient cohort, success of ICD therapies and sudden-death-free survival were similar in patients who had DFT, safety margin testing, and no testing, but overall survival was significantly lower in the no-testing group. Thus in the absence of prospective mortality data, a minimum of safety margin ICD testing should remain standard practice.

Association of Myocardial Ischemia With Mortality and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease at Risk of Arrhythmic Death

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the relation between myocardial ischemia during stress echocardiography and major events in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

BACKGROUND

The association of myocardial ischemia with subsequent ICD therapy and mortality is unknown.

METHODS

We studied 90 patients (age 65 +/- 13 years, 27 women) with history of coronary heart disease who received ICD for primary (53 patients) or secondary (37 patients) prevention of sudden cardiac death. Sixty-five (72%) patients had a previous coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients underwent exercise treadmill or dobutamine stress echocardiography. Ischemia was defined as new or worsening wall motion abnormalities. End points were death and appropriate ICD therapy.

RESULTS

Mean ejection fraction was 34 +/- 12%. During a mean follow-up of 2.8 +/- 1.5 years, 5 patients died and 19 patients had ICD therapy. Ischemia was detected in 20 of 24 patients with subsequent events and in 24 of 66 patients without (83% vs. 36%, p < 0.001). Events occurred in 17 of the 32 patients (53%) with both ischemia and inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) on electrophysiologic (EP) studies. None of the 16 patients without ischemia or inducible VT on EP studies had events. In a Cox multivariate analysis model, independent predictors of events were a history of spontaneous sustained VT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 3.8), inducible VT on EP studies (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.5), and ischemia (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemia during stress echocardiography is an independent predictor of death and ICD therapy in patients with coronary heart disease at high risk of arrhythmic death. Patients without inducible ischemia or VT on a previous EP study have a very low risk of events. A combination of ischemia and a positive EP study is associated with a very high risk of events.

Preimplantation B-type natriuretic peptide concentration is an independent predictor of future appropriate implantable defibrillator therapies

OBJECTIVE

To assess prospectively whether preimplantation B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and C reactive protein (CRP) concentrations predict future appropriate therapies from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary cardiac care centre.

METHODS

345 consecutive patients undergoing first time ICD implantation were prospectively studied. Serum BNP and CRP concentrations were obtained the day before ICD implantation. Patients were followed up with device interrogation to assess for appropriate shocks or antitachycardia pacing. Inappropriate therapies were excluded. Mean (SD) follow up was 13 (5) months.

RESULTS

Patients had ischaemic (71%), primary dilated (17%), and valvar or other cardiomyopathies (12%). About half (52%) had ICDs implanted for primary prevention. Sixty three (18%) received appropriate ICD therapies. Serum creatinine, beta blocker, statin, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor usage did not differ between therapy and no therapy groups. By univariate comparison, ejection fraction (p = 0.048), not taking amiodarone (p = 0.033), and BNP concentration (p = 0.0003) were risk factors for ICD therapy. However, by Cox regression multivariate analysis, only BNP above the 50th centile was a significant predictor (hazard ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 4.71, p = 0.040). Median BNP was 573 ng/l versus 243 ng/l in therapy and no therapy patients, respectively (p = 0.0003). More patients with BNP above the 50th centile (27% v 10%, p = 0.006) received ICD therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

A single preimplantation BNP concentration determination is independently predictive of ICD therapies in patients with cardiomyopathies undergoing first time ICD implantation. CRP was not independently predictive of ICD therapies when compared with BNP.

Heart Failure and the Risk of Shocks in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background— Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) predicts device discharges in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The relationship between severity of congestive heart failure (CHF) and ICD discharges is less clear.

Methods and Results— We prospectively analyzed the association between CHF and risk of appropriate ICD discharges in the Triggers Of Ventricular Arrhythmias (TOVA) study, a cohort study of ICD patients conducted at 31 centers in the United States. Reported shocks were confirmed for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) by analysis of stored electrograms. Proportional hazards models included CHF categorized by New York Heart Association class. Baseline CHF was present among 502 (44%) of 1140 patients; 170 (34%) had class I, 230 (46%) had class II, 97 (19%) had class III, and only 5 (1%) had class IV symptoms. During median follow-up of 212 days, 92 patients experienced 1 or more appropriate ICD discharges. Class III CHF was associated in a statistically significantly manner with ICD discharge for VT/VF (hazard ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.98), even with adjustment for LVEF. The combination of LVEF <0.20 and class III symptoms resulted in a particularly high risk of shocks for VT/VF (hazard ratio 3.90, 95% CI 1.28 to 11.92).

Conclusions— Class III CHF, an easily accessible clinical measure, is an independent risk factor, along with LVEF, for ventricular arrhythmias that require shock therapy among ICD patients. Whether patients with class III CHF benefit to a greater degree from ICDs and whether aggressive treatment of CHF in ICD patients may prevent ventricular arrhythmias remains to be determined.

Recurrence of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator after the first device therapy: implications for antiarrhythmic therapy and driving restrictions. CARE Group

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether clinical or electrophysiologic characteristics could predict initial and subsequent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy.

BACKGROUND

Identification of markers to predict subsequent ICD therapy and symptoms after the first event could affect patient management.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 125 ICD patients followed for 408+/-321 days. Medications and ICD programming were not changed after first ICD therapy.

RESULTS

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy occurred in 58 patients (46%). Clinical features were as follows: mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 29%+/-15%; coronary artery disease 84%; presenting arrhythmia with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) in 68%. In a multivariate analysis the relative risk for ICD therapy in patients presenting with SMVT versus cardiac arrest (CA) was 2.57 (range, 1.32 to 5.01), and for patients with LVEF < or =25%, 1.95 (1.11 to 3.45), respectively (p < 0.05). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was not predicted by any other variable. Forty-six patients had second ICD therapy. Mean time to second ICD therapy was only 66+/-93 days compared with 138+/-168 days for first ICD therapy (p < 0.05). No predictor for second ICD therapy was found. Regarding symptoms, impaired consciousness during initial ICD therapy was predicted only by SMVT cycle length <250 ms at electrophysiologic testing. In contrast, symptoms were similar between first and second ICD therapy (p = 0.0001). Of note, ventricular tachycardia cycle length preceding first and second ICD therapy was similar (r = 0.76, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

First ICD therapy tends to occur in patients presenting with SMVT and LVEF < or =25%. Subsequent therapy occurs sooner and is unpredictable, suggesting that antiarrhythmic drug therapy should be considered after the first symptomatic ICD therapy. Symptoms during first ICD therapy predict subsequent symptoms, and patients presenting with SMVT and asymptomatic first ICD therapy are at very low risk for future syncopal ICD therapy.