Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Use of electrophysiologic testing in the prediction of long-term outcome

Troubleshooting new ICD systems

Advances in ICD technology have improved arrhythmia detection and termination, and the development of nonthoracotomy lead systems has reduced operative mortality and morbidity. Despite these important developments, patients with ICDs continue to experience untoward events that are usually attributable to lead failures, the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs, problems related to signal processing, or the need to modify the ICD program. It is incumbent on physicians who implant ICDs and monitor long-term therapy to appreciate the mechanisms by which these events occur, approaches needed to establish a diagnosis, and therapeutic interventions that can resolve problems associated with ICDs.

Predicting antiarrhythmic drug efficacy

For years, electrophysiologic testing was regarded as the best way to select effective pharmacologic therapy. But now it appears that Holter monitoring is just as accurate--as well as simpler, safer, and cheaper. Nevertheless, most patients eventually will need an electrophysiologic study because of the high rate of arrhythmia recurrence.

Predicting and preventing sudden death from cardiac causes

Sudden cardiac death usually occurs secondary to a ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Even under ideal circumstances only 20% of patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge. Therefore, aggressive treatment and screening of high-risk patients are mandatory to improve survival rates. Risk stratification of high-risk patients, such as the post-myocardial infarction (MI) population, has been of limited value. Between 70% and 85% of "high-risk" post-MI patients, as defined by these screening tests, will not have a sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia over several years of follow-up. The use of beta-blockers and possibly amiodarone may have some benefit in reducing mortality in high-risk patients after an MI. Several ongoing trials are studying the use of serial drug testing, amiodarone, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in reducing the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients with potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators appear to be superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in reducing sudden cardiac death, total mortality may not be altered. In sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, sotalol and amiodarone appear to be superior to other drugs in preventing arrhythmia recurrence. Ongoing trials, such as the Antiarrhythmic Drug versus Implantable Device (AVID) trial may define the best strategy in these high-risk patients.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in 300 patients with coronary artery disease presenting exclusively with ventricular fibrillation

To determine outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in a uniform population of survivors of sudden cardiac death, we used epicardial defibrillation lead systems to study 300 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting exclusively with ventricular fibrillation (VF) unassociated with acute myocardial infarction. Operative (30-day) mortality, 2.7% overall, was lower (0.6%) in patients with ejection fractions (EF) > or = 0.30. Over a median follow-up of 1.9 years, cumulative actuarial shock incidence was similar in patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (38%) and in those who did not. The 2-year cumulative actuarial incidences of any or appropriate shocks were 65% and 38%, respectively. Sudden death survival at 2 years was 92.5% and 99.3% for patients with EFs < or = 0.30 and > 0.30, respectively. The total mortality rate was similar in shocked and in unshocked patients. Multivariate analysis identified EF and female gender as significant predictors of any and appropriate shock occurrence (all p values < or = 0.05) and EF as a significant predictor of sudden, cardiac, and total mortality (all p values < 0.03). We conclude that in CAD patients presenting exclusively with VF unassociated with acute myocardial infarction and treated with thoracotomy-requiring ICD therapy: (1) operative (30-day) mortality is minimal for patients with an EF > or = 0.30; (2) device use is high and sudden death rates low regardless of concomitant CABG; (3) low EF is a significant predictor of cumulative shock occurrence and mortality (sudden, cardiac, and total); (4) female gender may be a predictor of shock occurrence; and (5) similar mortalities and low sudden-death rates in shocked and nonshocked ICD patients imply that ICD therapy improves survival in shocked patients to a level observed in comparable patients in whom ventricular tachyarrhythmia does not recur.

Comparison of defibrillator therapy and other therapeutic modalities for sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation associated with coronary artery disease

Outcomes of 282 patients referred to the arrhythmia service at Montefiore Medical Center for sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 214) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 68) associated with coronary artery disease were analyzed retrospectively. All patients underwent serial drug trials by electrophysiologic testing and Holter monitoring. Sixty-eight patients who did not respond to drug therapy were treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD group), and 214 patients were treated with other methods guided by electrophysiologic testing and Holter monitoring (non-ICD group). The non-ICD group included 49 patients who responded to drug therapy as judged by electrophysiologic testing, as well as patients who did not respond and were not treated with defibrillator therapy for various reasons. Ten patients died in the hospital (2 patients in the ICD group, 8 in the non-ICD group). Actuarial survival rates free of total cardiac death at 1, 2, and 3 years were, respectively, 94%, 87%, and 85% in the ICD group, and 82%, 78%, and 73% in the non-ICD group (p = NS). Survival rates free of total death at 1, 2, and 3 years were 90%, 82%, and 76% in the ICD group, and 82%, 76%, and 70% in the non-ICD group, respectively (p = NS). Survival rates free of total cardiac and total deaths of 49 patients treated with an effective regimen determined by electrophysiologic testing were not significantly different from those of the ICD group. This retrospective study suggests that outcomes of patients treated with ICDs may not be dramatically different from those of patients treated with other methods guided primarily by electrophysiologic testing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Should electrophysiological studies be performed in asymptomatic patients following myocardial infarction? A pragmatic approach

We analyze the arguments commonly afforded by advocates of electrophysiological evaluation for patients with recent myocardial infarction. These arguments are: (1) electrophysiological evaluation is useful for risk stratification of infarct survivors; and (2) it may be used for guiding drug therapy or to identify a group of asymptomatic patients who will benefit from implantation of an automatic cardioverter defibrillator. A positive electrophysiological study is apparently the single best predictor of future arrhythmic events in infarct survivors. However, several noninvasive tests combined may provide just as valuable information. Therefore, electrophysiological evaluation should not be advised, to the majority of infarct survivors, for the mere purpose of risk stratification. Nevertheless, electrophysiological evaluation may be proposed to patients with impaired left ventricular function or high grade ventricular arrhythmias. Patients without inducible arrhythmias have a good prognosis and may be spared the risk of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs. However, before proceeding with invasive electrophysiological evaluation, both physician and patient should ask themselves if they are willing to go ahead with defibrillator implantation in case sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia is induced.

Patient acceptance of implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices: changing attitudes

Clinical experience suggests that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) can reduce sudden cardiac death and total mortality in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia who meet the selection criteria for implantation. In addition to surgical problems, patients are faced with psychological and social adjustments. Patient acceptance for such therapy is marked by perceived concerns regarding device discharge, life-style alterations, and complications. We included 57 patients with ICDs in a study of their acceptance of the device. Results of a specially designed questionnaire (state-trait personality inventory) showed that 47 of 57 patients felt that their symptoms improved with the ICD system, 32 were constantly aware of the device, and 24 patients acclimated to the ICD system within less than 2 months. With respect to the need for battery replacement, only 27 patients requested a repeat electrophysiologic evaluation, 20 patients stated fear of ICD discharges, 12 patients revealed physical discomfort from the device, and limited quality of life occurred in eight patients. Fifty-five of 57 patients answered that it was worth having an ICD device implanted, 30 (53%) patients returned to active life, and 56 (98%) would advise another patient to have an ICD implantation if necessary. In conclusion, in general, the acceptance of the ICD as a tool for management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias is very high. Quality of life and patient acceptance are important criteria for successful ICD therapy in addition to the improved survival rate.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)

In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study, was started in survivors of sudden cardiac death resulting from documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Through December 1991, 230 survivors (46 women, 184 men; mean age 57 +/- 11 years) of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias were randomly assigned to receive either oral propafenone (56 patients), amiodarone (56 patients), or metoprolol (59 patients) or to have an implantable defibrillator (59 patients) without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint of the study was total mortality. In March 1992, the propafenone arm of CASH was stopped because of excess mortality compared with the implantable defibrillator group. This article presents preliminary results of the comparison of implantable defibrillator therapy with propafenone therapy. A significantly higher incidence of total mortality, sudden death (12%), and cardiac arrest recurrence or sudden death (23%) was found in the propafenone group compared with the implantable defibrillator-treated patients (0%, p < 0.05). It was concluded that, in survivors of cardiac arrest, propafenone treatment is less effective than implantable defibrillator treatment.

Mortality benefits and the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing sudden death rates in patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, the magnitude of the ability of the ICD to improve overall survival is less certain. Data supporting the contention that the ICD prolongs survival are reviewed. It is evident that the mortality benefit consequent to the marked reduction in sudden death varies widely across subpopulations in a predictable manner. This observation reflects the powerful influence of other clinical factors that constrain survival in typical ICD patients. The implications for future studies on the ICD are discussed.

Future evaluation of antiarrhythmic therapy

The expansion of antiarrhythmic therapy beyond pharmacologic agents to include surgery, devices, and ablation procedures, plus the reaffirmation by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) of the need for concurrent placebo-controlled trials to establish a mortality benefit, have resulted in the need to consider the requirements for evaluating therapy. Pharmacologic therapy may be used in three ways: (1) primary; (2) alternative; and (3) adjunctive. To accurately identify a mortality benefit from primary therapy, a placebo-controlled study is necessary. In contrast, control of symptoms may be identified without the same rigorous demands. Current data are limited by the absence of true negative controls for most interventions that claim a possible mortality benefit. Alternative therapy provides a choice between equally effective therapies, neither of which has necessarily been documented to have a mortality benefit. Adjunctive therapy is that which is used for control of symptoms, whereas another therapy is used to provide a presumed or proved mortality benefit. For any of these approaches, therapy must be further evaluated in terms of four modifying variables: (1) impact of therapy on the basis of both its efficacy and efficiency; (2) interpretation of outcome data based on analysis of competing risks; (3) measurement of efficacy in terms of extension of life; and (4) analysis of outcome as the equilibrium between antiarrhythmic benefit and proarrhythmic risk. With these approaches a rational analysis of the effect of therapy and its cost-based benefit can be achieved.

Acute efficacy and chronic follow-up of patients with non-thoracotomy third generation implantable defibrillators

Non-thoracotomy implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has simplified the process of device insertion, promising to decrease associated procedural complications while providing sudden death protection at least equal to epicardial systems. This study presents the acute and chronic results of 110 patients who underwent attempted non-thoracotomy ICD implantation with the Medtronic Transvene lead system and PCD model 7217 or 7219. Of the 110 patients attempted, 100 (91%) had the system successfully implanted without the need for an epicardial patch. One patient died 1 week postoperatively of septic shock related to the implantation (0.9% perioperative mortality). During follow-up of 16 +/- 11 months, 45% of the patients had an event detected as ventricular tachycardia; 26% of these detections were felt clinically to be due to supraventricular rhythms. Of the remainder, 87% were successfully treated with the first VT therapy, and 98% were terminated by the final therapy; 66% of the patients had at least one episode of ventricular fibrillation, of which 5% were felt to be inappropriate detections; 85% of the appropriate episodes were successfully treated with the first VF therapy, and all were converted by the final therapy. Total mortality at 6, 12, and 24 months was 3%, 11%, and 19% respectively. Only one patient had sudden cardiac death, occurring at 13 months postimplant. Overall, the non-thoracotomy lead system for this ICD displayed infrequent implant complications and proved to be reliable at terminating arrhythmias and maintaining a low rate of sudden cardiac death in this high risk population.

Clinical predictors of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks (results of the CASCADE trial). Cardiac Arrest in Seattle, Conventional versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation

The Cardiac Arrest in Seattle, Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) study evaluated antiarrhythmic drug therapy in high-risk survivors of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy for 228 patients was randomized to amiodarone or conventional antiarrhythmic drugs. Additional therapy with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was provided to 105 of these patients. Clinical predictors of shocks were evaluated for the 88 patients with coronary artery disease (amiodarone 46, conventional 42), treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Survival free of all shocks at 2 years was 77% for patients taking amiodarone and 42% for those receiving conventional therapy (p = 0.014). Two-year survival free of syncopal shocks was 98% for amiodarone-treated patients and 81% for those receiving conventional agents (p = 0.01). Multiple clinical factors were evaluated by Cox analysis for potential clinical predictors of shocks. The independent clinical predictors of shocks were low ejection fraction (p = 0.002), female gender (p = 0.007) and conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.015). The only independent predictor of a shock associated with syncope was conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.035). Patients treated with amiodarone receive fewer shocks than patients treated with conventional drug therapy.

Electrical alternans and vulnerability to ventricular arrhythmias

BACKGROUND

Although electrical alternans (alternating amplitude from beat to beat on the electrocardiogram) has been associated with ventricular arrhythmias in many clinical settings, its physiologic importance and prognostic implications remain unknown.

METHODS

To test the hypothesis that electrical alternans is a marker of vulnerability to ventricular arrhythmias, we developed a technique to detect subtle alternation in the morphologic features of the electrocardiogram (which would not be detectable by visual inspection of the electrocardiogram). In a group of 83 patients referred for diagnostic electrophysiologic testing, we prospectively examined whether levels of alternans predicted vulnerability to arrhythmias as defined by the outcome of electrophysiologic testing and arrhythmia-free survival.

RESULTS

Sustained ventricular arrhythmias were induced during electrophysiologic testing in 32 of the patients (39 percent). In this group, low-level electrical alternans (a beat-to-beat change in amplitude of < 15 microV) was detected over a broad range of physiologic heart rates (from 95 to 150 beats per minute) and primarily involved the ST segment and the T wave (i.e., the phase of repolarization). Alternans during repolarization was a significant and independent predictor of inducible arrhythmias on electrophysiologic testing (sensitivity, 81 percent; specificity, 84 percent; relative risk, 5.2). Of 66 patients followed for up to 20 months, 13 had arrhythmic events. Alternans affecting the T wave and inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias were significant and essentially equivalent predictors of survival without arrhythmia (P < 0.001). Actuarial survival without arrhythmia at 20 months was significantly lower among the patients with T-wave alternans (19 percent) than among the patients without T-wave alternans (94 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical alternans affecting the ST segment and T wave is common among patients at increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Subtle electrical alternans on the electrocardiogram may serve as a noninvasive marker of vulnerability to ventricular arrhythmias.

Influence of left ventricular function on survival and mode of death after implantable defibrillator therapy (Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Montefiore Medical Center experience)

To determine the influence of left ventricular (LV) function on survival and mode of death in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), sudden death, surgical mortality, total arrhythmia-related death, total cardiac death and total death were retrospectively evaluated in 377 consecutive patients. The outcomes were also compared between patients with an LV ejection fraction > or = 30% (214 patients, group 1) and < 30% (148 patients, group 2). Surgical mortality was 3.9% (1.8% in group 1, 7% in group 2). During the follow-up of 25 +/- 20 months, actuarial survival rates of all patients at 3 years were 96% for sudden deaths, 81% for total cardiac deaths and 74% for total mortality. When the 2 groups were compared, survival rates of groups 1 and 2 at 3 years, respectively, were 99 and 90% for sudden death (p < 0.05), 97 and 84% for sudden death and surgical mortality (p < 0.01), 94 and 80% for the total arrhythmia-related death (p < 0.001), 88 and 68% for total cardiac death (p < 0.0001), and 81 and 62% for total mortality (p < 0.002). In group 2, 73% of total cardiac deaths within 1 year were causally related to the arrhythmia. Thus, in patients with an ICD, sudden death rates were very low. However, total cardiac death and total death rates were relatively higher. The outcomes of patients with an ICD were strongly influenced by the degree of LV dysfunction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Determinants of successful nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: experience in 101 patients using two different lead systems

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to identify the determinants of successful nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

BACKGROUND

Until recently, either median sternotomy or thoracotomy was necessary to implant the electrodes used for internal cardioverter-defibrillator systems. A number of manufacturers have developed nonthoracotomy lead systems comprising two transvenous coil electrodes and a subcutaneous patch electrode. At present, the factors associated with the success or failure of a nonthoracotomy approach are unknown.

METHODS

A total of 101 consecutive patients requiring a cardioverter-defibrillator underwent an initial nonthoracotomy approach. Factors associated with successful nonthoracotomy implantation were prospectively determined.

RESULTS

A nonthoracotomy system was implanted in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. Twenty-nine patients (29%) required thoracotomy. Univariate predictors of successful nonthoracotomy implantation included smaller cardiac size (p < 0.0001), smaller cardiothoracic ratio (p < 0.0002), QRS duration < 120 ms (p = 0.003), female gender (p = 0.006), ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia (p = 0.03) and smaller echocardiographic left ventricular size (p = 0.04). Multivariate predictors included smaller cardiac size (p < 0.002) and female gender (p < 0.007). Total actuarial survival over a mean (+/- SD) follow-up interval of 12 +/- 7 months was 91 +/- 0.03% and was not different in the thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator system can be implanted in a majority of patients. Smaller cardiac size and female gender are associated with a high probability of successful implantation.

Preliminary results of the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). CASH Investigators

Sodium channel blockers and class III antiarrhythmic compounds, as well as beta blockers, have been used in preventing recurrences of sudden cardiac death. In recent years, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been used increasingly, but no data from randomized trials comparing antiarrhythmic drug and ICD therapy have been reported in this setting. In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, randomized trial, was initiated to compare metoprolol, amiodarone, propafenone, and ICD implantation in patients surviving sudden cardiac death due to documented ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation. The details of the study design and preliminary results are presented herein. The primary endpoint of the study is total mortality. The data reviewed in March 1992, representing a mean follow-up period of 11 months, indicated no significant differences among patients randomized to metoprolol, amiodarone, and ICDs. However, there was a significantly higher total mortality and cardiac arrest recurrence in patients randomized to propafenone compared with those randomized to the ICD treatment limb. The study continues with the deletion of the propafenone treatment limb.

Future developments in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: the optimal device

Despite recent therapeutic advances, SCD remains the leading cause of mortality in industralized nations. The most frequent cause of SCD is ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the setting of advanced structural heart disease due to chronic coronary heart disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Although high-risk groups can be prospectively identified, attempts at primary prevention have been largely unsuccessful. Effective treatment strategies for SCD survivors include antiarrhythmic drug therapy guided by programmed stimulation, endocardial resection, and ICDs. Device therapy has proven extremely effective in preventing recurrent sudden death from ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Widespread application of ICD therapy, perhaps even to include members of high-risk populations that have not experienced cardiac arrest, will depend on many factors including the demonstration that device therapy improves total mortality, not just arrhythmia-related mortality, reduction in cost, and improvements in the devices themselves. Some of the important characteristics of the optimal ICD of the future are nonthoracotomy lead placement; subpectoral generator placement; multiprogrammable, tiered therapy; improved diagnostic specificity, whether based on electrogram or hemodynamic-sensing algorithms; improved integration of brady- and tachy-sensing systems; and enhanced electrogram storage capability with trans-telephonic retrieval of electrogram recordings. The creation of this ideal ICD will obviously require continued technological advances; however, given the tremendous improvements realized over the first three generations of ICD systems, optimism for the future seems warranted.

Influence of a third extrastimulus in defining effective drug therapy during serial electrophysiological testing

Many electrophysiology laboratories use three extrastimuli in all patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias during antiarrhythmic drug testing, regardless of the mode of arrhythmia induction in the baseline state. The purpose of this study was to compare this pacing protocol (full protocol) with a protocol in which three extrastimuli were only used during drug tests, if they were required in the baseline state for arrhythmia induction (limited protocol). There were 181 electrophysiology tests performed on 69 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias that were retrospectively analyzed. In all studies the full protocol was used, but the results of stimulation were also analyzed assuming the limited protocol had been used. In the baseline state, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were reproducibly inducible with one or two extrastimuli in 38 (55%) patients. Of these patients, six (16%) achieved a drug efficacy prediction using the full protocol versus 15 (39%) patients using the limited protocol (P < 0.001). In all 69 patients, the drug response rate increased from 25% to 38% (P < 0.01) using the limited protocol.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Multiple monomorphic ventricular tachycardia configurations predict failure of antiarrhythmic drug therapy guided by electrophysiologic study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the induction at electrophysiologic study of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardias with multiple QRS complex configurations predicted failure of subsequent serial electrophysiologic study guided antiarrhythmic drug testing.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachycardias with multiple QRS complex configurations are associated with failure of surgical therapy for ventricular tachycardia. As such, the presence of multiple monomorphic QRS complex ventricular tachycardias during electrophysiologic testing may predict failure of subsequent medical therapy.

METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive patients with coronary artery disease had reproducible induction of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during a baseline electrophysiologic study. Each patient then underwent a mean of 1.5 antiarrhythmic drug trials. An antiarrhythmic drug regimen that suppressed induction of ventricular tachycardia was identified in 13 (26%) of the 51 patients.

RESULTS

Patients with only one inducible monomorphic QRS complex ventricular tachycardia at baseline study were more likely to have an antiarrhythmic drug regimen identified that suppressed inducible ventricular tachycardia than were patients with multiple monomorphic QRS complex ventricular tachycardias (12[36%] of 33 patients vs. 1 [6%] of 18, p = 0.04). In seven patients with only one induced configuration of ventricular tachycardia, a second monomorphic ventricular tachycardia with a different QRS complex configuration occurred during attempts at pacing termination of the induced ventricular tachycardia. None of these seven patients then had successful drug suppression of inducible ventricular tachycardia. Thus, 12 (46%) of 26 patients with a single monomorphic QRS complex ventricular tachycardia observed at baseline study had successful serial drug testing compared with 1 (4%) of 25 patients with multiple QRS complex ventricular tachycardia configurations (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The induction or observation of multiple monomorphic QRS complex ventricular tachycardias at baseline electrophysiologic study predicted failure of subsequent serial electrophysiologic study--guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

Influence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on the long-term prognosis of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest not associated with acute myocardial infarction are at high risk for recurrent cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death. The impact of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator on long-term prognosis in these patients is uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-one survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (age, 56 +/- 13.7 years) underwent electrophysiologically guided therapy. Implantable defibrillators were placed in 150 patients (45.3%), and 181 patients (54.7%) received pharmacological and/or surgical therapy alone. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 35.2 +/- 16.6% in defibrillator recipients and 45.3 +/- 18.2% in nondefibrillator patients. Median patient follow-up was 24 months in the defibrillator group and 46 months in the nondefibrillator group. In a proportional hazards model, the independent predictors of total cardiac mortality were left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 0.40 (relative risk, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.44 to 8.33; P = .0001), absence of an implantable defibrillator (relative risk, 2.70; confidence interval, 1.41 to 5.00; P = .017), and persistence of inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia (relative risk, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 3.49; P = .045). The 1- and 5-year probabilities of survival free of cardiac mortality in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 0.40 were 94.3% and 69.6% with a defibrillator and 82.1% and 45.3% without a defibrillator, respectively. For patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or more, the 1- and 5-year probabilities of survival free of cardiac mortality were 97.7% and 94.6% with a defibrillator and 95.4% and 86.9% without a defibrillator, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the implantable defibrillator is associated with a reduction in cardiac mortality, particularly in patients with impaired left ventricular function.

Patient acceptance of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Besides surgical problems, recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are faced with psychological and social adjustments. Successful ICD therapy is influenced by the patients' perceived concerns regarding device, discharge, changes in life style, and complications. In order to assess patients' acceptance of the ICD, the psychological profile of 57 consecutive patients was evaluated using a specifically designed questionnaire and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The results showed that 20 patients stated fear of ICD discharge, 12 patients revealed physical discomfort due to the device, and limited quality-of-life occurred in 8 patients. Fifty-five of 57 patients answered that it was worth having an ICD device implanted, 30 (53%) patients returned to active life, and 56 (98%) would advise another patient to undergo implantation if necessary. Overall, there was only a slight, but insignificant, decrease in the level of anxiety within the total patient population after ICD implantation. However, a comparison of two subgroups indicated that the state of anxiety was significantly higher in patients < 50 years of age as well as in patients having received > 5 shocks versus those > 50 years of age and having experienced < 5 shocks. In general, the acceptance of the ICD as a tool in managing life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias is high. Besides the increased survival rate, quality-of-life and patient acceptance are important criteria for successful ICD therapy.

Risk stratification and prognosis of patients treated with amiodarone for malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias after myocardial infarction

Seventy-seven consecutive patients (mean age 62 years) with episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were evaluated to assess the long-term efficacy of first-line amiodarone treatment and to identify clinical and laboratory factors associated with a high risk of death or arrhythmia recurrence. The presenting arrhythmia was VT in 41 cases (53%) and VF in 36 (47%). VT or VF occurred between the 4th and 90th day after AMI in 45 cases (58%) and later (more than 90 days) in the remaining 32 (42%). The mean number of arrhythmic episodes was 4.2. Forty patients (52%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II, and 37 (48%) were in class III or IV. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%; ventricular aneurysm was present in 41 subjects. Most patients had multivessel coronary artery disease. Amiodarone was administered as a first-choice drug in all patients, in combination with other antiarrhythmic drugs in 14. By ventricular stimulation after loading doses of amiodarone, sustained VT was inducible in 46 (62%) and noninducible in 28 (38%). During a mean follow-up of 28 months the incidence of cardiac mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years was 21%, 37%, and 47%; of sudden death was 7%, 19%, and 23%; of nonfatal VT recurrence was 13%, 13%, and 24%, respectively. The overall incidence of amiodarone side effects was 35%.2+ was a weak predictor only by univariate analysis (p = 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Efficacy of a tiered therapy defibrillator system used to treat recurrent ventricular arrhythmias refractory to drugs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an implantable tiered therapy defibrillator system that delivered antitachycardia pacing treatment for slower well tolerated ventricular tachycardias and cardioversion or defibrillation for fast tachycardias or ventricular fibrillation.

METHODS

A tiered treatment device (Ventritex Cadence V-100) was implanted in 30 patients with ventricular tachycardia that was refractory to drugs. Efficacy was evaluated by the responses of induced or spontaneous arrhythmias to the treatments delivered.

RESULTS

Antitachycardia pacing successfully terminated 80% of episodes of ventricular tachycardia induced by non-invasive programmed stimulation, but acceleration was brought about by pacing in six patients in 10% of episodes. During a follow up of two to 17 (mean seven) months, 18 patients (60%) had recurrence of ventricular arrhythmias. Antitachycardia pacing terminated ventricular tachycardia in 17 of 18 patients in 87% of episodes. Twelve patients received shocks for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Failure of pacing, with subsequent cardioversion, occurred in nine patients (50%) in one or more episodes. Acceleration of tachycardia by pacing occurred in 10 patients in 5% of episodes. Only two of these patients had experienced acceleration of previously induced arrhythmia. Five patients had spontaneous fast ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation treated by cardioversion or defibrillation. Spurious treatment was delivered in nine patients (30%), during atrial fibrillation in five, sinus tachycardia in two, and because of fracture of the sensing lead system in two patients. The retrieval of stored intracardiac electrograms was of clinical value in assessing spurious treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Tiered treatment was effective in terminating recurrent ventricular arrhythmias in these selected patients. Most episodes were treated successfully by pacing, and resistant tachycardias, pacing induced acceleration, or haemodynamically compromising arrhythmias were treated by shocks.

Efficacy of class 1C antiarrhythmic agents in patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia refractory to therapy with class 1A antiarrhythmic drugs

The efficacy of class 1C antiarrhythmic agents was determined in 36 patients with inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during baseline electrophysiology study (EPS), who continued to have inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during EPS on class 1A antiarrhythmic therapy. Of 12 patients who partially responded to class 1A drugs, 11 (91.7%) continued to have a partial response during EPS on class 1C therapy, whereas one patient did not respond. Of 24 nonresponders to class 1A therapy, 2 (8.3%) responded during EPS on class 1C therapy, 7 (29.2%) partially responded, and 15 (62.5%) did not respond. In the 24 nonresponders to class 1A therapy, 9 of 17 patients (53%) with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) > or = 30% responded or partially responded to class 1C therapy, compared with none of 7 patients with EF < 30% (P < .05). The EPS on class 1C agents in patients who fail to respond to class 1A therapy may be warranted only in those with EF > or = 30%.

Ventricular fibrillation in patients without significant structural heart disease: a multicenter experience with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to characterize the outcome of survivors of ventricular fibrillation with no or minimal structural heart disease who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND

The prognosis among survivors of ventricular fibrillation with minimal or no structural cardiac abnormalities remains unclear. Since the advent of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, this question takes on added importance.

METHODS

This 10-center retrospective study provided information on 28 survivors of ventricular fibrillation (mean age 42 years) with minimal or no structural abnormalities who were treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

RESULTS

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias (polymorphic in all but one patient) were induced during baseline programmed stimulation in 39% of patients. During a median 30.6-month follow-up period after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, there were no cardiac deaths and two noncardiac deaths. Sixteen patients experienced 36 shock episodes (total 88 shocks). The majority of shocks were classified as "indeterminate"; one patient received 47 "spurious" shocks during one shock episode and each of four patients received one "appropriate" shock. Ventricular arrhythmias were not inducible in any of these latter four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of ventricular fibrillation with minimal or no structural cardiac abnormalities receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator have an excellent 3-year survival rate. The occurrence, albeit infrequent, of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in this group suggests that these patients have a potential risk of recurrent cardiac arrest whose fatal outcome may be avoided by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in survivors of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death without inducible arrhythmias

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no ventricular arrhythmias can be induced with programmed electrical stimulation.

BACKGROUND

Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom ventricular arrhythmias cannot be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remain at risk for recurrence of serious arrhythmias. Optimal protection to prevent sudden death in these patients is uncertain. This study compares survival in the subset of survivors of sudden cardiac death with that of patients treated with or without an ICD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 194 consecutive survivors of primary sudden death who had < or = 6 beats of ventricular tachycardia induced with programmed electrical stimulation with at least three extrastimuli. Ninety-nine patients received an ICD and 95 did not.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in presenting rhythm, number of prior myocardial infarctions or use of antiarrhythmic agents. Patients treated with an ICD were younger (55 +/- 16 vs. 59 +/- 11 years, p = 0.03) and had a lesser incidence of coronary artery disease (48% vs. 63%, p = 0.04) and a lower ejection fraction (0.43 +/- 0.16 vs. 0.48 +/- 0.18, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the groups in the use of revascularization procedures or antiarrhythmic agents after the sudden cardiac death. Patients treated with an ICD had an improvement in sudden cardiac death-free survival (p = 0.04) but the overall survival rate did not differ from that of the patients not so treated (p = 0.91). A multivariate regression analysis that adjusted for the observed differences between the groups did not alter these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no arrhythmias could be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remained at risk for arrhythmia recurrence. Although the proportion of deaths attributed to arrhythmias was lower in the patients treated with an ICD, this therapy did not significantly improve overall survival.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation: ICD therapy in sudden cardiac death

Among the various therapy options for survivors of ventricular tachycardia-ventricular fibrillation (VT-VF), the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) seems most promising. It reliably terminates VT-VF and thus significantly impacts sudden cardiac death (SCD) survival. It is more effective than any of the known antiarrhythmic drugs in prevention of SCD, particularly among survivors of cardiac arrest. Compared to VT surgery, the ICD therapy can be offered to a larger pool of patients and can be placed at a lower surgical risk. With proper patient selection, ICD therapy is of major benefits to its recipients since it markedly reduces the chances of VT-VF related mortality; the main cause of premature death in this population. The ICD therapy is cost effective when compared to other medical interventions and could be more so if the implant is carried out early in the course of VT-VF management.

Drugs, surgery, cardioverter defibrillator: a decision based on the clinical problem

These three therapeutic options are the basis of sudden cardiac death prevention: antiarrhythmic drugs, surgery, and automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Each of these treatments has specific favorable and unfavorable indications. Antiarrhythmic drugs are mainly limited by the low therapeutic profile, proarrhythmic effects, complex pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, possible negative inotropic effects, and the possible change of the organic substratum. Arrhythmia surgery may be limited by the need of a highly trained center, by a relatively high perioperative mortality (up to 15%), and by limited electrophysiological and clinical indications. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an expensive tool with a theoretically wide range of clinical indications, with already proven efficacy in converting ventricular fibrillation to sinus rhythm but with unproven efficacy on prolonging survival because of a lack of controlled trials (which, we must admit, is also true for drugs and surgery). The results of the ongoing multicenter trials on this item will clarify this clinical point. The choice among these different therapeutic options is mainly based on hemodynamic status (ejection fraction), feasibility of a surgical treatment, and the electrophysiological characteristics of the ventricular arrhythmia.

Prognosis after syncope: impact of left ventricular function

A cardiac cause of syncope has been associated with increased sudden death risk, whereas unexplained syncope has a benign prognosis. However, in patients who have depressed left ventricular function, the accuracy of diagnostic tests and the efficacy of therapy, such as antiarrhythmic drugs, are reduced. Previous studies of patients with syncope have not evaluated the contribution of left ventricular performance in risk stratification for sudden death. The purpose of our study of a large population of patients with syncope was to determine the impact of left ventricular dysfunction on sudden death risk if syncope is caused by a cardiac cause or remains unexplained after electrophysiologic testing. We retrospectively evaluated the relationship of left ventricular ejection fraction to sudden death prognosis in 88 consecutive patients referred for electrophysiologic testing to determine a cause of syncope. The mean age was 57 +/- 18 years, left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.41 +/- 0.20, and 66 patients (75%) had structural heart disease. In 49 patients (56%) a cardiac cause of syncope was diagnosed, and in 39 patients (44%) the cause of syncope remained unexplained after evaluation. Cardiac syncope was attributed to ventricular tachycardia in 27 patients, bradyarrhythmia in 11 patients, and supraventricular tachyarrhythmia in 11 patients. By logistic regression only structural heart disease was independently associated with cardiac cause of syncope (p = 0.003). After a mean follow-up of 790 +/- 688 days, nine patients had died suddenly, eight (89%) of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.30.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Device use patterns and clinical outcome of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients with moderate and severe impairment of left ventricular function

The beneficial effects of implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias and variable degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are debated. ICD use and patient survival were examined in 128 patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias and moderate or severe LV dysfunction. Group I included 64 patients with moderate LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction of > 30%) and group II, 64 patients with severe LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction of < or = 30%). Follow-up period ranged from 1 to 78 months. The two groups were similar in age, incidence of coronary artery disease and presenting arrhythmia. The mean LV ejection fraction in group I was 44% +/- 8% and group II was 22% +/- 5% (P < 0.0001). At 4 years of follow-up, 66% of patients from group I and 62% from group II (P = NS) had ICD activation for presumed ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Survival was calculated using actuarial analysis. Arrhythmic or sudden death mortality at 4 years of follow-up was 4% in group I and 7% in group II (P = NS). Cardiac mortality was for group I, 7% (P < 0.05), 12% (P < 0.01), 15% (P < 0.01), and 15% (P < 0.01) for follow-up years 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For group II, cardiac mortality was 27%, 36%, 41%, and 41% for follow-up years for 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The majority of cardiac deaths in both groups was observed in the first 2 years of follow-up.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Implications for present and future applications of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator resulting from the use of a simple model of cost efficacy

OBJECTIVE

To develop a model to assess the cost-efficacy of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden death. The model must be sufficiently flexible to allow the use of cost and survival figures derived from different sources.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a teaching hospital department of cardiology with experience of 40 implantable cardioverter defibrillator implants and a large database of over 500 survivors of myocardial infarction.

PROCEDURE

The basic costs of screening tests, stay in hospital, and purchase of implantable cardioverter defibrillators were derived from St George's Hospital during 1991. To assess the cost-efficacy of various strategies for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, survival data taken from published studies or from our own database. Implications of the national cost of the various strategies were calculated by estimating the number of patients a year requiring implantation of a defibrillator if the strategy was adopted.

RESULTS

Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in survivors of cardiac arrest costs between 22,400 pounds and 57,000 pounds for each year of life saved. Most of the strategies proposed by the current generation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials have cost efficacies in the same range, and adoption of any one of these strategies in the United Kingdom could cost between 2 million pounds and 100 million pounds a year. Future technical and medical developments mean that cost-efficacy may be improved by up to 80%. Due to the limitations of screening tests currently available restriction on the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators to those groups where it seems highly cost-effective will result in a small impact on overall mortality from sudden cardiac death.

CONCLUSION

Present and possible future applications of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator seem expensive when compared with currently accepted treatments. Technical and medical developments are, however, likely to result in a dramatic improvement in cost efficacy over the next few years.

Determinants of the hemodynamic consequence to sustained ventricular arrhythmias after a single myocardial infarction

Patients who have sustained ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction present with either a cardiac arrest or with hemodynamically stable sustained ventricular tachycardia. Recent reports have suggested a different electrophysiologic milieu in these two patient groups and a higher incidence of cardiac arrest in patients with a history of more than one myocardial infarction. No studies have examined patients with only a single previous myocardial infarction. To assess the determinants of the hemodynamic consequence of sustained ventricular arrhythmias more than 3 days after a single myocardial infarction, 82 patients who were resuscitated from arrhythmic cardiac arrest (CA group, 40 patients) or who had hemodynamically stable sustained ventricular tachycardia (No CA group, 42 patients) were examined. Patients in both groups had similar global left ventricular ejection fractions (mean +/- SD; 30% +/- 12% vs 27% +/- 12%; p = NS), proportion of patients with anterior wall infarctions as compared with the proportion of patients with inferior wall infarctions (55% vs 50%; p = NS), time from infarction to arrhythmia development, severity of coronary artery disease, and the proportion of patients with congestive heart failure or bundle branch block. Patients who presented without cardiac arrest, however, more frequently had left ventricular aneurysms (58% vs 28%; p = 0.005). Sixty-seven patients underwent baseline drug-free electrophysiologic studies. Sustained ventricular tachycardia was induced in 79% of patients in the CA group and 85% of patients in the No CA group (p = NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Survival of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: role of left ventricular function and its relationship to device use

The quantitative benefit of ICD therapy in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmia with different degrees of left ventricular dysfunction is unclear. We evaluated patterns of ICD use and survival in 112 patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction. Group 1 included 57 patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 30%) and group 2 comprised 55 patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (defined as ejection fraction equal to or less than 30%). The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 78 months. Age, incidence of coronary artery disease, and presenting arrhythmia in the two groups were similar. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction in group 1 was 44.6 +/- 8.2% and in group 2 was 21.6 +/- 6% (p < 0.0001). At 3 years of follow-up 65% of the patients in group 1 and 71% in group 2 (p = NS) had ICD activation for presumed ventricular tachycardia. Survival was calculated by means of actuarial analysis. Arrhythmia or sudden death mortality at 4 years of follow-up was 5% in group 1 and 9% in group 2 (NS). Cardiac mortality was higher in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction reaching levels of statistical significance at 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years of follow-up it was 12% in group 1 and 40% in group 2 (p = 0.05), and at 4 years of follow-up it was 15% in group 1 and 43% in group 2 (p < 0.01). In both groups there was no difference in cardiac mortality in patients who did and did not have appropriate ICD shocks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)