Electrophysiologic Considerations After Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Death with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a MADIT-II substudy

AIMS

There are limited data regarding factors that identify implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients who will experience either ventricular tachyarrhythmic (VTA) or non-arrhythmic (NA) mortality, and the commonly used clinical classification of sudden cardiac death (SCD) vs. non-sudden cardiac death (NSCD) may not be accurate enough. We aimed to correlate clinical adjudication of mortality events to device interrogation data and to identify risk factors for VTA mortality in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of the 746 patients who received an ICD in MADIT-II, 44 died from cardiac causes and had available interrogation data at the time of death. Sudden cardiac death vs. NSCD was defined by an adjudication committee. Ventricular tachyarrhythmic and NA arrhythmic deaths were categorized by the presence or absence of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) during the terminal event. Mode of death was found to be inaccurate when validated by device interrogation for VTA events: 50% patients adjudicated as SCD did not have a VTA event at the time of death; and 25% of adjudicated NSCD were found to have VT/VF during the mortality event. Multivariate analysis showed that factors independently associated with VTA mortality included: VT/VF >72 h prior to the mortality event [hazard ratio (HR) 8.0; P < 0.001], hospitalization for heart failure (HR 6.7; P = 0.001), and a history of hypertension (HR 4; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Current classification of SCD vs. NSCD fails to identify VTA events at the time of death in a significant proportion of patients, and simple clinical parameters can be used to identify ICD recipients with increased risk for VTA mortality.

Exploring the acceptability of implantable defibrillators in patients with cardiac dystrophinopathy and carers

Objective

Unlike for patients with other forms of cardiomyopathies, those with severe ventricular dysfunction due to Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are not offered implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy routinely. This prospective study aimed to determine the views of DMD-patients and their carers about discussing sudden death risk and their acceptance of ICDs.

Design and setting

Adults with DMD (n=9) and parents/carers (n=9) participated in audio-recorded, 60–90 min focus group sessions (patients 2; parents/carers 2) conducted through either a face-to-face session at a neutral venue or a videoconference. Sessions were facilitated by a clinical psychologist, experienced in conducting focus group research. All participants understood the rationale for the study and the nature of ICD therapy. The same predefined themes were explored with each group. Recordings were transcribed, analysed thematically by two researchers, working independently and then agreed. Differences in responses between patient and carer groups were also studied and compared. Participants all provided informed written consent and the study had ethical approval.

Results

Three main themes emerged: (1) access to/quality of information provided by professionals and patient engagement with them; (2) decision-making about ICDs; (3) individuals’ own ‘lived experience’ of DMD.

Conclusions

The main findings were: (1) patients with DMD want to have their risk of sudden arrhythmic death discussed, when relevant and (2) if ICD therapy were established as beneficial, they would welcome an individualised discussion about its appropriateness for them.