Secondary Prevention of Potentially Life-Threatening Arrhythmia Using Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients with Biopsy-Proven Viral Myocarditis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Sudden cardiac death after acute myocarditis with arrhythmic presentation: hunting for risk predictors - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) frequently occur in the acute phase of myocarditis. Possible arrhythmic recurrences and the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in this setting are reasons for concern, and limited data have been published to guide clinical management of these patients. The aim of the present paper is to report the incidence of major arrhythmic events, defined as sustained VA, SCD and appropriate implantable cardiac-defibrillator (ICD) treatment, in patients with acute myocarditis and ventricular arrhythmic phenotype.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to evaluate studies reporting long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocarditis and arrhythmic presentation. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases for relevant studies up to 2 August 2024. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was a composite of SCD, VA recurrence and appropriate ICD therapy. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled ORs and CIs.

RESULTS

Five observational studies enrolling 322 patients were identified. The pooled proportion of patients who experienced VA recurrence was 0.41 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, p=0.13). An increased risk of adverse outcomes during follow-up was observed in patients presenting with monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.23 to 11.53) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.78 to 9.63). Gender and anteroseptal late gadolinium enhancement were not found as potential risk factors in this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with myocarditis with arrhythmic ventricular presentation have a high recurrence rate of VA, underscoring the importance of careful monitoring and management in this patient population. Risk stratification for SCD during follow-up should be individualised, and monomorphic VA at presentation or a reduced LVEF may be markers of poor prognosis. In these cases, an ICD implantation may be cautious pending further dedicated studies.

Fatal ventricular arrhythmias in myocarditis: A review of current indications for defibrillator devices

Historically, patients with myocarditis were considered for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) utilization only in the chronic phase of the disease following the development of persistent cardiomyopathy refractory to medical therapy or occurrence of a major ventricular arrhythmic event. However, recent literature has indicated that ventricular arrhythmias are frequently reported even in the acute phase of the disease, challenging the long-standing perception that this disease process was largely reversible. Given this changing environment of information, the latest US and European guidelines were recently updated in 2022 to now consider ICD implantation during the acute phase which has significantly increased the number of individuals eligible for these devices. Additionally, several studies with small subgroups of patients have demonstrated a possible benefit of wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCDs) in this patient demographic. Assuming that larger studies confirm their utility, it is possible that WCDs can assist in detection of ventricular arrhythmias and selection of high-risk candidates for ICD implantation, while providing temporary protection for a small percentage of patients before the development of a major arrhythmic event. This review ultimately serves as a comprehensive review of the most recent guidelines for defibrillator use in acute and chronic myocarditis. OPINION STATEMENT: The latest US and European guidelines support ICD use for myocarditis patients following the development of persistent cardiomyopathy refractory to medical therapy or occurrence of a major ventricular arrhythmic event. Previously, patients in the acute phase were excluded from ICD utilization even after experiencing malignant ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation due to the long-standing perception that this disease process was largely reversible. However, recent literature has indicated that ventricular arrhythmias are frequently reported even in the acute phase of the disease. Additionally, we found that the myocardial damage that is inflicted persists many years after the initial episode. Given this changing environment of information, guidelines were recently updated in 2022 to now consider ICD implantation during the acute phase which has significantly increased the number of individuals eligible for these devices. We support possible ICD utilization for secondary prevention during the acute phase of myocarditis given the elevated risk of arrhythmia recurrence and the fact that any ventricular arrhythmia can induce sudden cardiac death. Future prospective studies are needed to assess which patients may benefit most from early ICD implantation. WCDs have improved survival in patient populations at high-risk for sudden cardiac death who are not candidates for ICD implantation. After analyzing several recent studies with small subgroups of patients, WCDs appear to demonstrate similar efficacy for myocarditis patients as well. Assuming that larger studies confirm their utility, we believe that WCDs can assist in detection of ventricular arrhythmias and selection of high-risk candidates for ICD implantation. Furthermore, WCDs have the additional benefit of acting as primary prevention by providing temporary protection for a small percentage of myocarditis patients before they develop a major arrhythmic event.

Cardiac arrhythmias in viral infections

BACKGROUND

The current COVID-19 pandemic has led to many studies examining its arrhythmogenic effects. However, there are many other viruses that are capable of inducing arrhythmias that have not received as much attention. The objective of this study was to review common viruses and identify studies highlighting their arrhythmogenic effects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this review, we examined 15 viruses and the literature regarding their arrhythmogenic effects. The common mechanisms of action appear to be direct invasion of myocytes leading to immune mediated damage, infection of vascular endothelium, and alteration of cardiac ion channels.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the growing evidence that supports the involvement of other viral infections in the development of arrhythmia. Physicians should be aware of these potentially life-threatening effects when caring for patients with these viruses, some of which are very common. Additional studies are required to better understand the complex mechanism and risk factors of cardiac arrhythmias in patients suffered from viral infections to determine whether the processes can be reversed or even prevented.

Clinical profiling and outcomes of viral myocarditis manifesting with ventricular arrhythmias

Aims

Clinical features and risk stratification of patients with viral myocarditis (VM) complicated by ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are incompletely understood. We aim to describe arrhythmia patterns and outcomes in patients with VM and early-onset VA.

Methods and results

We present a single-centre study, enrolling patients with VM proven by endomyocardial biopsy, and evidence of VA within 24 h of hospitalization. The incidence of major adverse events (MAE), including all-cause death, severe heart failure, advanced atrioventricular blocks, or major VA, was evaluated during a 24-month follow-up (FU) and compared with a matched group of virus-negative myocarditis. Of patients with VM (n = 74, mean age 47 ± 16 years, 66% males, and left ventricular ejection fraction 51 ± 13%), 20 (27%) presented with major VA [ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF)], and 32 (44%) had polymorphic VA. Patients with polymorphic VA more commonly had evidence of ongoing systemic infection (24/32 vs. 10/42, P = 0.004) and experienced greater occurrence of MAE at discharge (15/32 vs. 2/42, P < 0.001). However, the incidence of MAE during FU was higher in patients with monomorphic VA compared to those with polymorphic VA (17/42 vs. 2/28, P = 0.002). Patients with monomorphic VA displayed frequently signs of chronic cardiomyopathy and had outcomes comparable with virus-negative myocarditis (log rank P = 0.929). Presentation with VT/VF was independently associated with MAE [at discharge: hazard ratio (HR) 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-14.0, P = 0.005; during FU: HR 6.3, 95% CI 2.3-17.6, P < 0.001].

Conclusion

In patients with VM, polymorphic VA point to ongoing systemic infection and early adverse outcomes, whereas monomorphic VA suggest chronic cardiomyopathy and greater incidence of MAE during FU. Presentation with VT/VF is independently associated with MAE.