Association of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators With Survival in Patients With and Without Improved Ejection Fraction: Secondary Analysis of the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial

Elevated B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Level as a Residual Risk Factor for Ventricular Arrhythmias Among Patients Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background

Patients who achieve improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >35%) with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are at a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA). Little is known about the significance of the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level for the risk of VA. This study investigated the risk factors for VA in CRT and the risk stratification of VA with BNP in CRT with improved LVEF.

Methods and Results

This study evaluated 352 CRT patients from 2012 to 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: improved LVEF (impEF; LVEF >35%), and low LVEF (lowEF; LVEF ≤35%). The serum BNP levels 6 months after CRT device implantation were measured. The primary endpoint was defined as VA requiring treatment with anti-tachycardia pacing or shock or persisting for ≥30 s. Overall, 102 patients had improved LVEF. The impEF group had a significantly lower VA risk than the lowEF group. Patients with low BNP had a lower VA risk than those with high BNP; however, no significant difference was observed between patients with high BNP and those in the lowEF group. Univariate analysis revealed that high BNP was a predictor of VA in the impEF group.

Conclusions

The VA risk is reduced with improved LVEF after CRT but not with high BNP levels. The post-BNP level after CRT implantation is a useful marker for predicting VA in patients with improved LVEF.

Management of cardiac sarcoidosis

Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a form of inflammatory cardiomyopathy associated with significant clinical complications such as high-degree atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and heart failure as well as sudden cardiac death. It is therefore important to provide an expert consensus statement summarizing the role of different available diagnostic tools and emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. By integrating clinical information and the results of diagnostic tests, an accurate, validated, and timely diagnosis can be made, while alternative diagnoses can be reasonably excluded. This clinical expert consensus statement reviews the evidence on the management of different CS manifestations and provides advice to practicing clinicians in the field on the role of immunosuppression and the treatment of cardiac complications based on limited published data and the experience of international CS experts. The monitoring and risk stratification of patients with CS is also covered, while controversies and future research needs are explored.

Risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with mildly to moderately reduced ejection fraction after permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

Many patients with mildly to moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who require permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation do not have a concurrent indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, the risk of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in this population is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the risk of VT/VF after PPM implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed of 243 patients with LVEF between 35% and 49% who underwent PPM placement and did not meet indications for an ICD. The primary end point was occurrence of sustained VT/VF. Competing risks regression was performed to calculate subhazard ratios for the primary end point.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 27 months; 73% of patients were male, average age was 79 ± 10 years, average LVEF was 42% ± 4%, and 70% were New York Heart Association class II or above. Most PPMs were implanted for sick sinus syndrome (34%) or atrioventricular block (50%). Of 243 total patients, 11 (4.5%) met the primary end point of VT/VF. Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) was associated with significantly higher rates of VT/VF, with a subhazard ratio of 5.4 (95% CI, 1.5-20.1; P = .01). Of patients with multivessel CAD, 8 of 82 (9.8%) patients met the primary end point for an annualized risk of 4.3% per year.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF and multivessel CAD undergoing PPM implantation are at increased risk for the development of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Patients in this population may benefit from additional risk stratification for VT/VF and consideration for upfront ICD implantation.

Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Prevalence, Predictors, and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy

Recently, a new category of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) has emerged in the classification system. This is defined as the subgroup of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) whose left ventricular ejection fraction has recovered partially or completely, with no specific cut-off values established yet in the guidelines. In our review, we aim to provide an overview of prevalence, predictors, mechanism of remodeling, and management strategies regarding HFimpEF. These patients constitute a sizeable cohort among patients with reduced ejection fraction. Certain patient characteristics including younger age and female gender, absence of comorbid conditions, low levels of biomarkers, and non-ischemic etiology were identified as positive predictors. The heart undergoes significant maladaptive changes post failure leading to adverse remodeling influenced etiology and duration. Goal-directed medical therapy including beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have notably improved cardiac function by inducing reverse remodeling. Despite a more favorable prognosis compared to HFrEF, patients with improved ejection fraction (EF) still face clinical events and reduced quality of life, and remain at risk of adverse outcomes. Although the evidence is scarce, it is advisable to continue treatment modalities despite improvement in EF, including device therapies, to prevent relapse and clinical deterioration. It is imperative to conduct further research to understand the mechanism leading to EF amelioration and establish guidelines to identify and direct management strategies.

Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction-A Phenotype Waiting to Be Explored

Heart failure (HF) presents a significant global health challenge recognised by frequent hospitalisation and high mortality rates. The assessment of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) plays a crucial role in diagnosing and predicting outcomes in HF, leading to its classification into preserved (HFpEF), reduced (HFrEF), and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) EF. HFmrEF shares features of both HFrEF and HFpEF but also exhibits distinct characteristics. Despite advancements, managing HFmrEF remains challenging due to its diverse presentation. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the predictors of clinical outcomes and treatment responses. Utilising biomarkers for phenotyping holds the potential for discovering new treatment targets. Given the uncertainty surrounding optimal management, individualised approaches are imperative for HFmrEF patients. This chapter examines HFmrEF, discusses the rationale for its re-classification, and elucidates HFmrEF's key attributes. Furthermore, it provides a comprehensive review of current treatment strategies for HFmrEF patients.

Risk of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is controversial in patients who have heart failure with improved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% after implantation (HFimpEF).

METHODS

Databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were queried for studies in patients with ICD that reported the association between HFimpEF and arrhythmic events (AEs), defined as the combined incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD intervention, and sudden cardiac death (primary composite end point).

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies and 38,572 patients (11,135 with HFimpEF, 27,437 with persistent EF ≤35%) were included; mean follow-up was 43 months. HFimpEF was associated with decreased AEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.47; annual rate [AR] 4.1% vs 8%, p <0.01). Super-responders (EF ≥50%) had less risk of AEs than did patients with more modest reverse remodeling (EF >35% and <50%, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, AR 2.7% vs 6.2%, p <0.01). Patients with HFimpEF who had an initial primary-prevention indication had less risk of AEs (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.61, AR 5.1% vs 10.3%, p <0.01). Among patients with primary prevention who had never received appropriate ICD therapy at the time of generator change, HFimpEF was associated with decreased subsequent AEs (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, AR 1.6% vs 4.8%, p <0.01). In conclusion, HFimpEF is associated with reduced, but not eliminated, risk for AEs in patients with ICDs. The decision to replace an ICD in subgroups at less risk should incorporate shared decision making based on risks for subsequent AEs and procedural complications.

Your Heart Function Has Normalized-What Next After TRED-HF?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the widespread implementation of contemporary disease-modifying heart failure therapy, the rates of normalization of ejection fraction are continuously increasing. The TRED-HF trial confirmed that heart failure remission rather than complete recovery is typical in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who respond to therapy. The present review outlines key points related to the management and knowledge gaps of this growing patient group, focusing on patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is substantial heterogeneity among patients with normalized ejection fraction. The specific etiology is likely to affect the outcome, although a multiple-hit phenotype is frequent and may not be identified without comprehensive characterization. A monogenic or polygenic genetic susceptibility is common. Ongoing pathophysiological processes may be unraveled with advanced cardiac imaging, biomarkers, multi-omics, and machine learning technologies. There are limited studies that have investigated the withdrawal of specific heart failure therapies in these patients. Diuretics may be safely withdrawn if there is no evidence of congestion, while continued therapy with at least some disease-modifying therapy is likely to be required to reduce myocardial workload and sustain remission for the vast majority. Understanding the underlying disease mechanisms of patients with normalized ejection fraction is crucial in identifying markers of myocardial relapse and guiding individualized therapy in the future. Ongoing clinical trials should inform personalized approaches to therapy.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Risk of ventricular arrhythmias following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator change in patients with recovered ejection fraction: Implications for shared decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines indicate primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for most patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. Some patients' LVEFs improve during the life of their first ICD. In patients with recovered LVEF who never received appropriate ICD therapy, the utility of generator replacement upon battery depletion remains unclear. Here, we evaluate ICD therapy based on LVEF at the time of generator change, to educate shared decision-making regarding whether to replace the depleted ICD.

METHODS

We followed patients with a primary-prevention ICD who underwent generator change. Patients who received appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) before generator change were excluded. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapy, adjusted for the competing risk of death.

RESULTS

Among 951 generator changes, 423 met inclusion criteria. During 3.4 ± 2.2 years follow-up, 78 (18%) received appropriate therapy for VT/VF. Compared to patients with recovered LVEF > 35% (n = 161 [38%]), those with LVEF ≤ 35% (n = 262 [62%]) were more likely to require ICD therapy (p = .002; Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year event rates: 12.7% vs. 25.0%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the optimal LVEF cutoff for VT/VF prediction to be 45%, the use of which further improved risk stratification (p < .001), with Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year rates 6.2% versus 25.1%.

CONCLUSION

Following ICD generator change, patients with primary-prevention ICDs and recovered LVEF have significantly lower risk of subsequent ventricular arrhythmias compared to those with persistent LVEF depression. Risk stratification at LVEF 45% offers significant additional negative predictive value over a 35% cutoff, without a significant loss in sensitivity. These data may be useful during shared decision-making at the time of ICD generator battery depletion.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: Current understanding and future prospects

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a prevalent kind of heart failure in which a significant amount of the ejection fraction can be repaired, and left ventricular remodeling and dysfunction can be reversed or even restored completely. However, a considerable number of patients still present clinical signs and biochemical features of incomplete recovery from the pathophysiology of heart failure and are at risk for adverse outcomes such as re-deterioration of systolic function and recurrence of HFrEF. Furthermore, it is revealed from a microscopic perspective that even if partial or complete reverse remodeling occurs, the morphological changes of cardiomyocytes, extracellular matrix deposition, and abnormal transcription and expression of pathological genes still exist. Patients with "recovered ejection fraction" have milder clinical symptoms and better outcomes than those with continued reduction of ejection fraction. Based on the unique characteristics of this subgroup and the existence of many unknowns, the academic community defines it as a new category-heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). Because there is a shortage of natural history data for this population as well as high-quality clinical and basic research data, it is difficult to accurately evaluate clinical risk and manage this population. This review will present the current understanding of HFrecEF from the limited literature.

Perioperative changes in left ventricular systolic function following surgical revascularization

Background

Nearly 1/3^rd of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) have left ventricular systolic dysfunction. However, the extent, direction and implications of perioperative changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have not been well characterized in these patients.

Methods

We studied the changes in LVEF among 549 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) who underwent CABG as part of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. Patients had pre- and post-CABG (4 month) LVEF assessments using identical cardiac imaging modality, interpreted at a core laboratory. An absolute change of >10% in LVEF was considered clinically significant.

Results

Of the 549 patients (mean age 61.4±9.55 years, and 72 [13.1%] women), 145 (26.4%) had a >10% improvement in LVEF, 369 (67.2%) had no change and 35 (6.4%) had >10% worsening of LVEF following CABG. Patients with lower preoperative LVEF were more likely to experience an improvement after CABG (odds ratio 1.36; 95% CI 1.21–1.53; per 5% lower preoperative LVEF; p <0.001). Notably, incidence of postoperative improvement in LVEF was not influenced by presence, nor absence, of myocardial viability (25.5% vs. 28.3% respectively, p = 0.67). After adjusting for age, sex, baseline LVEF, and NYHA Class, a >10% improvement in LVEF after CABG was associated with a 57% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26–0.71).

Conclusions

Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing CABG, 26.4% had >10% improvement in LVEF. An improvement in LVEF was more likely in patients with lower preoperative LVEF and was associated with improved long-term survival.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

From mid-range to mildly reduced ejection fraction heart failure: A call to treat

The historical classification of heart failure (HF) has considered two distinct subgroups, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), generally classified as EF below 40%, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) variably classified as EF above 40%, 45% or 50%. One of the principal reasons behind this distinction was related to presence of effective therapy in HFrEF, but not in HFpEF. Recently the expanding knowledge in the specific subgroup of patient with a LVEF between 41% and 49% and the potential benefit of new therapies and of those used in patients with LVEF below 40%, has led to rename this group as HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). In this review we discuss the reasons behind this modification, we summarize the main characteristics of HFmrEF the similarities and differences with the two other EF categories, and finally we provide a comprehensive overview of the current available evidence supporting the treatment of patients with HFmrEF.

Survival Probability and Survival Benefit Associated With Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Generator Changes

Background As patients derive variable benefit from generator changes (GCs) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with an original primary prevention (PP) indication, better predictors of outcomes are needed. Methods and Results In the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry, patients undergoing GCs of initial non-cardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs in 2012 to 2016, predictors of post-GC survival and survival benefit versus control heart failure patients without ICDs were assessed. These included predicted annual mortality based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35%, and the probability that a patient's death would be arrhythmic (proportional risk of arrhythmic death [PRAD]). In 40 933 patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs (age 67.7±12.0 years, 24.5% women, 34.1% with LVEF >35%), Seattle Heart Failure Model-predicted annual mortality had the greatest effect size for decreased post-GC survival (P<0.0001). Patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchronization therapy PP ICDs with LVEF >35% had a lower Seattle Heart Failure Model-adjusted survival versus 23 472 control heart failure patients without ICDs (model interaction hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.31]). In patients undergoing GCs of initial noncardiac resynchonization therapy PP ICDs with LVEF ≤35%, the model indicated worse survival versus controls in the 21% of patients with a PRAD <43% and improved survival in the 10% with PRAD >65%. The association of the PRAD with survival benefit or harm was similar in patients with or without pre-GC ICD therapies. Conclusions Patients who received replacement of an ICD originally implanted for primary prevention and had at the time of GC either LVEF >35% alone or both LVEF ≤35% and PRAD <43% had worse survival versus controls without ICDs.

Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction and the utility of defibrillator therapy: a review

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) involves those who have previously had reduced cardiac function that has subsequently improved. However, there is not a single definition of this phenomenon and recovery of cardiac function in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) itself does not necessarily correlate with remission from the detrimental physiology of heart failure (HF) and its consequences. There is also the question of the utility of defibrillators in these patients, and whether they should be replaced at the time of battery depletion. To address this, several studies have shown specific predictors of ensuing LVEF recovery, including patient demographics, co‐morbidities, and medication use, as well as predictors of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) following LVEF recovery. Recent studies have also shown novel imaging parameters that may aid in predicting which patients would have a higher risk of these arrhythmias. Additional data describe a small, yet appreciable risk of VA, in addition to appropriate shocks as well. In this review, we describe predictors of LVEF recovery, carefully analyse and characterize the continued risk for VA and appropriate shocks following LVEF recovery, and explore additional novel modalities that may aid in decision‐making.

Improvement of left ventricular function with surgical revascularization in patients eligible for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35% is the cornerstone criterion for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) eligibility. Improvement in EF may occur in ICD-eligible patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). However, the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of this process are unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 427 patients with EF ≤ 35% who underwent CABG in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial and had a systematic pre- and postoperative (4 months) EF assessment using the identical cardiac imaging modality. All imaging studies were interpreted at a core laboratory. Improvement in EF was defined as postoperative EF > 35% and >5% absolute improvement from baseline. Of the 427 patients (mean age 61.8 ± 9.5 and 50 women), 125 (29.2%) had EF improvement. Their mean EF increased from 26.8% (±5.8%) to 43.3% (±6.5%) (p < .0001). EF improvement occurred in only 20% of patients with a preoperative EF < 25%. The odds of EF improvement were 1.96 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-4.23, p = .09) in patients with myocardial viability. In adjusted analyses, EF improvement was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.96; p = .03) and heart failure mortality (HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.87; p = .027).

CONCLUSION

Nearly 1/3rd of ICD-eligible patients undergoing CABG had significant improvement in EF, obviating the need for primary prevention ICD implantation. These results provide patients and clinicians data on the likelihood of ICD eligibility after CABG and support the practice of reassessment of EF after revascularization.

CinE caRdiac magneTic resonAnce to predIct veNTricular arrhYthmia (CERTAINTY)

Better models to identify individuals at low risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) are needed for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) candidates to mitigate the risk of ICD-related complications. We designed the CERTAINTY study (CinE caRdiac magneTic resonAnce to predIct veNTricular arrhYthmia) with deep learning for VA risk prediction from cine cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Using a training cohort of primary prevention ICD recipients (n = 350, 97 women, median age 59 years, 178 ischemic cardiomyopathy) who underwent CMR immediately prior to ICD implantation, we developed two neural networks: Cine Fingerprint Extractor and Risk Predictor. The former extracts cardiac structure and function features from cine CMR in a form of cine fingerprint in a fully unsupervised fashion, and the latter takes in the cine fingerprint and outputs disease outcomes as a cine risk score. Patients with VA (n = 96) had a significantly higher cine risk score than those without VA. Multivariate analysis showed that the cine risk score was significantly associated with VA after adjusting for clinical characteristics, cardiac structure and function including CMR-derived scar extent. These findings indicate that non-contrast, cine CMR inherently contains features to improve VA risk prediction in primary prevention ICD candidates. We solicit participation from multiple centers for external validation.

The DAPA Trial in the Context of Previous Prophylactic ICD Landmark Trials

In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), an arrhythmogenic milieu is created by a complex interplay between myocardial scarring (assessed by cardiac MRI) and multiple other factors (ventricular ectopy, ischaemia and autonomic imbalance), favouring the occurrence of arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD). Currently, a dynamic and robust model of dichotomised SCD risk assessment after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is lacking, underlining the urgent need for further refinement of the widely accepted and guidelines-based criteria (ischaemic cardiomyopathy, LVEF ≤35%) for primary prevention. This review addresses the potential additional value of the recently published Defibrillator After Primary Angioplasty (DAPA) trial results. The DAPA trial conveys important messages and provides novel perspectives regarding left ventricular function post-primary PCI as an (early) risk marker for SCD and the impact of prophylactic ICD implantation on survival in this cohort. In the context of other previous primary prevention trials, DAPA was the first trial including only ST-elevation MI patients all treated with acute PCI.

Predictors of Sudden Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Post-Myocardial Infarction Ejection Fraction Greater Than 35

Background

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) risk increases after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with a reduced ejection fraction (EF). However, the risk factors for SCA among patients with a post‐MI EF >35% remain poorly understood.

Methods and Results

Using the Optum de‐identified electronic health record data set from 2008 to 2017, we identified patients with an incident MI diagnosis and troponin elevation who had a post‐MI EF >35% and underwent coronary angiography. Primary outcome was SCA within 1 year post‐MI. The database was divided into derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts by random selection. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to generate and validate a risk prediction model. Among 31 286 patients with an MI (median age 64.1; 39% female; 87% White), 499 experienced SCA within 1 year post‐MI (estimated probability 1.8%). Lack of revascularization at MI, post‐MI EF <50%, Black race, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, antiarrhythmic therapy, and absence of beta blocker therapy were independent predictors of SCA. A multivariable model consisting of these variables predicted SCA risk (C‐statistic 0.73). Based on this model, the estimated annual probability of SCA was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.9–4.9) in the highest quartile of risk versus 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4–0.8) in the lowest quartile.

Conclusions

Patients with a post‐MI EF >35% have a substantial annual risk of SCA. A risk model consisting of acute coronary revascularization, EF, race, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, antiarrhythmic therapy, and beta blocker therapy can identify patients with higher risk of SCA, who may benefit from further risk stratification and closer monitoring.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks During COVID-19 Outbreak

Background

COVID‐19 was temporally associated with an increase in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrests, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. We sought to determine if patients with implantable defibrillators residing in areas with high COVID‐19 activity experienced an increase in defibrillator shocks during the COVID‐19 outbreak.

Methods and Results

Using the Medtronic (Mounds View, MN) Carelink database from 2019 and 2020, we retrospectively determined the incidence of implantable defibrillator shock episodes among patients residing in New York City, New Orleans, LA, and Boston, MA. A total of 14 665 patients with a Medtronic implantable defibrillator (age, 66±13 years; and 72% men) were included in the analysis. Comparing analysis time periods coinciding with the COVID‐19 outbreak in 2020 with the same periods in 2019, we observed a larger mean rate of defibrillator shock episodes per 1000 patients in New York City (17.8 versus 11.7, respectively), New Orleans (26.4 versus 13.5, respectively), and Boston (30.9 versus 20.6, respectively) during the COVID‐19 surge. Age‐ and sex‐adjusted hurdle model showed that the Poisson distribution rate of defibrillator shocks for patients with ≥1 shock was 3.11 times larger (95% CI, 1.08–8.99; P=0.036) in New York City, 3.74 times larger (95% CI, 0.88–15.89; P=0.074) in New Orleans, and 1.97 times larger (95% CI, 0.69–5.61; P=0.202) in Boston in 2020 versus 2019. However, the binomial odds of any given patient having a shock episode was not different in 2020 versus 2019.

Conclusions

Defibrillator shock episodes increased during the higher COVID‐19 activity in New York City, New Orleans, and Boston. These observations may provide insights into COVID‐19–related increase in cardiac arrests.

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction

Given recent advances in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies for improving outcomes related to chronic systolic heart failure, heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) is now recognized as a distinct clinical entity with increasing prevalence. In many patients who once had an indication for active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, questions remain regarding the usefulness of this primary prevention strategy to protect against syncope and cardiac arrest after they have achieved myocardial recovery. Early, small studies provide convincing evidence for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in segments of the HFrecEF population to promote persistent left ventricular myocardial recovery. Retrospective data suggest that the risk of sudden cardiac death is lower, but still present, in HFrecEF as compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction, with reports of up to 5 appropriate ICD therapies delivered per 100 patient-years. The usefulness of continued ICD therapy is weighed against the unfavorable effects of this strategy, which include a cumulative risk of infection, inappropriate discharge, and patient-level anxiety. Historically, many surrogate measures for risk stratification have been explored, but few have demonstrated efficacy and widespread availability. We found that the available data to inform decisions surrounding the continued use of active ICD therapies in this population are incomplete, and more advanced tools such as genetic testing, evaluation of high-risk structural cardiomyopathies (such as noncompaction), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have emerged as vital in risk stratification. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making to evaluate the appropriateness of active ICD therapy for any given individual. In this article, we explore the definition of HFrecEF, data underlying continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who have achieved left ventricular ejection fraction recovery, the benefits and risks of active ICD therapy, and surrogate measures that may have a role in risk stratification.

Heart Failure With Recovered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

Reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling and recovery of LV function are associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A growing body of evidence suggests that even among patients who experience a complete normalization of LV ejection fraction, a significant proportion will develop recurrent LV dysfunction accompanied by recurrent heart failure events. This has led to intense interest in understanding how to manage patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). Because of the lack of a standard definition for HFrecEF, and the paucity of clinical data with respect to the natural history of HFrecEF patients, there are no current guidelines on how these patients should be followed up and managed. Accordingly, this JACC Scientific Expert Panel reviews the biology of reverse LV remodeling and the clinical course of patients with HFrecEF, as well as provides guidelines for defining, diagnosing, and managing patients with HFrecEF.

Trajectory of left ventricular ejection fraction among individuals eligible for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

OBJECTIVE

Examine the trajectory of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) among patients eligible for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy.

BACKGROUND

EF is the cornerstone criterion for ICD therapy, but the risk of sudden cardiac death remains after an improvement in EF.

METHODS

We examined the trajectory of EF among 1178 participants of the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) who had three or more assessments of EF, at least 90 days apart. A follow-up EF > 35% or >10% absolute increase in EF from baseline were examined as the criteria for EF improvement.

RESULTS

At first follow-up, 381 (32%) patients had an improvement of EF to >35%. However, EF had returned back to ≤35% in 109 (27%) of these patients at second follow-up. Similarly, 446 (38%) patients experienced a >10% improvement in EF at first follow-up, but 109 (24%) of these had a subsequent >10% decrease in EF at the second follow-up. Of the 32 patients with normalized EF (≥55%) at first follow-up, 18 (56%) had a subsequent >10% decrease in EF. The fluctuation in EF was present in both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy but a higher proportion of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy had an improvement in EF to >35% at first follow-up compared to those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (38% vs. 27%, p = < .0001).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial fluctuation of EF among patients who are eligible for ICD therapy.

Factors and outcomes associated with improved left ventricular systolic function in patients with cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Many patients in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) had a significant improvement (> 10%) in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during the course of the study, but the factors and outcomes associated with such improvement are uncertain.

METHODS

We examined factors and rates of mortality, cause-specific mortality, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks associated with improvement in LVEF by analyzing patients in the SCD-HeFT who were randomized to placebo or an ICD and who had an LVEF checked during follow-up.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 3.99 years, of 837 patients who had at least two follow-up LVEF measurements, 276 (33%) patients had > 10% improvement in LVEF and 561 (67%) patients had no significant change in LVEF. Factors significantly associated with LVEF improvement included female sex, white race, history of hypertension, a QRS duration < 120 ms, and beta-blocker use. Improvement in LVEF was associated with a significant improvement in survival. There was no significant association between improvement in LVEF and cause-specific death, but there was a significant association between improvement in LVEF and reduced risk of receiving appropriate ICD shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

About a third of patients in this analysis, who were randomized to placebo or an ICD in SCD-HeFT, had a significant improvement in LVEF during follow-up; improvement in LVEF was associated with improved survival but not with cause-specific death, and with decreased likelihood of receiving appropriate ICD shocks.

Sinergy between drugs and devices in the fight against sudden cardiac death and heart failure

The impact of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF) patients is important and prevention of SCD is a reasonable and clinically justified endpoint if associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. According to literature, in HF with reduced ejection fraction, only three classes of agents were found effective in reducing SCD and all-cause mortality: beta-blockers, mineralcorticoid receptor antagonists and, more recently, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin-inhibitors. In the PARADIGM trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril, the 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular deaths obtained with sacubitril/valsartan was attributable to reductions in the incidence of both SCD and death due to HF worsening and this effect can be added to the known positive effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in appropriately selected patients. In order to maximize the implementation of all the available treatments, patients with HF should be included in virtuous networks with a dialogue between all the physician involved, with commitment by all these physicians for appropriate decision-making on application of pharmacological and device treatments according to available evidence, as well as commitment for drug titration before and after device implant, taking advantage from remote monitoring, and with the safety of back up device therapy when indicated. There are potential synergistic effects of drug therapy, with all the therapies acting on neuro-hormonal and sympathetic activation, but specifically with sacubitril/valsartan, and device therapy, in particular cardiac resynchronization therapy, with added incremental benefits on positive cardiac remodelling, prevention of HF progression, and prevention of ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Long-Term Outcome of the Randomized DAPA Trial

Background:

The randomized DAPA trial (Defibrillator After Primary Angioplasty) aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in early selected high-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction.

Methods:

A randomized, multicenter, controlled trial compared ICD versus conventional medical therapy in high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, based on one of the following factors: left ventricular ejection fraction <30% within 4 days after ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, primary ventricular fibrillation, Killip class ≥2 or TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention. ICD was implanted 30 to 60 days after MI. Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 3 years follow-up. The trial prematurely ended after inclusion of 266 patients (38% of the calculated sample size). Additional survival assessment was performed in February 2019 for the primary end point.

Results:

A total of 266 patients, 78.2% males, with a mean age of 60.8±11.3 years, were enrolled. One hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to the ICD arm and 135 patients to the control arm. All-cause mortality was significant lower in the ICD group (5% versus 13%, hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15–0.95]) after 3 years follow-up. Appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 9 patients at 3 years follow-up (5 within the first 8 months after implantation). After a median long-term follow-up of 9 years (interquartile range, 3–11), total mortality (18% versus 38%; hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.91]), and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28–0.99]) was significant lower in the ICD group. Noncardiac death was not significantly different between groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased ≥10% in 46.5% of the patients during follow-up, and the extent of improvement was similar in both study groups.

Conclusions:

In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial, early prophylactic ICD implantation demonstrated lower total and cardiac mortality in patients with high-risk ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Registration:

URL: https://www.trialregister.nl ; Unique identifier: Trial NL74 (NTR105).

Baseline and Dynamic Risk Predictors of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

Background Current approaches fail to separate patients at high versus low risk for ventricular arrhythmias owing to overreliance on a snapshot left ventricular ejection fraction measure. We used statistical machine learning to identify important cardiac imaging and time-varying risk predictors. Methods and Results Three hundred eighty-two cardiomyopathy patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) underwent cardiac magnetic resonance before primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion. The primary end point was appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge or sudden death. Patient characteristics; serum biomarkers of inflammation, neurohormonal status, and injury; and cardiac magnetic resonance-measured left ventricle and left atrial indices and myocardial scar burden were assessed at baseline. Time-varying covariates comprised interval heart failure hospitalizations and left ventricular ejection fractions. A random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes incorporating baseline and time-varying variables was compared with (1) Seattle Heart Failure model scores and (2) random forest survival and Cox regression models incorporating baseline characteristics with and without imaging variables. Age averaged 57±13 years with 28% women, 66% white, 51% ischemic, and follow-up time of 5.9±2.3 years. The primary end point (n=75) occurred at 3.3±2.4 years. Random forest statistical method for survival, longitudinal, and multivariable outcomes with baseline and time-varying predictors had the highest area under the receiver operating curve, median 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96). Top predictors comprised heart failure hospitalization, left ventricle scar, left ventricle and left atrial volumes, left atrial function, and interleukin-6 level; heart failure accounted for 67% of the variation explained by the prediction, imaging 27%, and interleukin-6 2%. Serial left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant predictor. Conclusions Hospitalization for heart failure and baseline cardiac metrics substantially improve ventricular arrhythmic risk prediction.

Implications of Frailty among Men with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes, but little is known of the impact of frailty on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). This study sought to determine the prevalence of frailty, based on quantitative assessment, and assessed its potential impact on outcomes among community-dwelling men with ICDs.

METHODS

A total of 124 ICD-treated men presenting for a routine device clinic appointment between May and October 2016 underwent frailty assessment consisting of three components: shrinking (weight loss ≥5% during the past year), weakness (inability to rise from a chair without using their arms), and self-reported poor energy level. Patients who had no components were considered robust, those with 1 component were intermediate stage, and those with ≥2 components were deemed frail.

RESULTS

Mean age was 70.4 (±9.7) years. Of the 124 men, 31 (25%) were considered to be frail, 65 (52%) were intermediate, and 28 (23%) were robust. Frail men were older and were more likely to have symptomatic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension (P < 0.05 for all) compared with nonfrail men. During a follow-up of 16 months, frail men were significantly more likely to die compared with nonfrail men (29% vs 5.4%, P < 0.0003). The incidence of appropriate ICD shocks (16.1% vs 6.5%) or hospitalizations (38.7% vs 23.7%) tended to be higher among frail versus nonfrail patients, but neither reached statistical significance (P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one-fourth of men with ICD are frail. Almost one-third of frail ICD patients died within 16 months. It may be useful to assess frailty in patients with ICD.

The incidence and survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation in end-stage kidney disease patients: A nationwide population-based study

Background

This study analyzed the survival and protective predictors of in-hospital cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation (CPCR) to potentially help physicians create effective treatment plans for End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients.

Methods

We extracted the data of 7,116 ESKD patients who received their first in-hospital CPCR after initial dialysis between 2004 and 2012 from the National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary outcome was the survival rate during the first in-hospital CPCR. The secondary outcome was the median post-discharge survival.

Results

From 2004 through 2012, the incidence of in-hospital CPCR decreases from 3.97 to 3.67 events per 1,000 admission days (P for linear trend <0.001). The survival rate for the first in-hospital CPCR did not change significantly across the 9 years (P for trend = 0.244), whereas the median survival of post-discharge survival increased significantly from 3.0 months in 2004 to 6.8 months in 2011 (P for linear trend <0.001). In addition, multivariable analysis identified older age as a risk factor and prior intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation as a protective factor for in-hospital death during the first in-hospital CPCR.

Conclusion

The incidence of in-hospital CPCR and the duration post-discharge among ESKD patients improved despite there being no significant difference in the survival rate of ESKD patients after CPCP. Either ICD or CRT-D implantation may be advisable for ESKD patients with a high risk of sudden cardiac death.

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a common arrhythmia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but its incidence, predictors, and significance have not been determined in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of arrhythmias in two cohorts of patients with an HFpEF diagnosis. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 40) underwent routine arrhythmia surveillance with a 14-day ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) monitor. Patients in cohort 2 (n = 85) had cardiac pacemakers and underwent routine device interrogations.

RESULTS

In cohort 1, 13 patients (32.5%) had one or more episodes of nonsustained VT (NSVT) on ambulatory ECG. In cohort 2, 38 patients (44.7%) had NSVT on cardiac pacemaker interrogations. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.0 (1.6 to 5.1) years, 15 (12%) patients died (20% of patients with NSVT versus 6.8% of those without NSVT; P = .03). In logistic regression analysis, NSVT was associated with a 3.4-fold higher odds of death (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 10.53; P = .04) in HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, patients with HFpEF have a relatively high, and possibly underappreciated, burden of NSVT, which confers a higher risk of mortality. The frequent episodes of NSVT in these patients may provide insight into the mechanism of sudden cardiac death in HFpEF.

Mechanism of spontaneous initiation of ventricular fibrillation in patients with implantable defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

To improve the mechanistic understanding of spontaneous initiation of ventricular fibrillation (VF), we characterized the patterns of premature ventricular complex (PVC) preceding spontaneous VF in primary and secondary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-center, cross-sectional analysis of 1209 patients with primary and secondary prevention ICD identified 190 patients who received ICD therapy (firing or antitachycardia pacing) for VF or monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MMVT). Initiation was quantified by the coupling interval (CI), the cycle length immediately preceding the CI (CL(-1)), the CI corrected by CL(-1) using Fridericia's formula (CIc), and the prematurity index (PI). In both VF (n = 44; 23%) and MMVT (n = 134; 71%), the most common pattern of initiation was late-coupled PVC, followed by the short-long-short pattern. The parameters such as pre-initiation median CL, CL(-1), CI, and PI were not significantly different between VF and MMVT for any patterns. At least some events (45% of VF and 63% of MMVT) had extremely long CIs beyond the QTc cut-off estimated from the CL(-1), suggestive of initiation by a train of multiple PVCs or nonsustained VT instead of a single PVC.

CONCLUSION

Some spontaneous VF events in ICD recipients appear to be initiated by a train of multiple PVC or nonsustained VT rather than a single PVC. This finding indicates that patterns of a single PVC are not an important determinant of VF initiation and thus account for conflicting results in previous studies.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Sudden Death: How to Identify High Risk Patients?

Background: Cardiac failure with preserved ejection fraction corresponds to half of the cardiac failure cases, having a similar prognosis to patients with reduced ejection fraction. Cardiac sudden death is responsible to about one quarter of the death on these patients. Despite some trials were intended to identify patients with a higher risk to these outcome, it is not already know: how we should proceed to stratify the risk of sudden death in this patients. Methods: To assess the profile of patients with cardiac sudden death and cardiac failure with preserved ejection fraction, we did a literature review, searching for the newer articles about the theme. Outcome: Several trials were published involving patients with divers characteristics that can help us to identify patients with a higher risk of sudden death. The publication of risk score demonstrated that would be possible to identify patients with a >10% risk of sudden death in 5 years, what would be equivalent to the risk of reduced ejection fraction patients eligible to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Trials with electrophysiological study and programmed ventricular stimulation showed a good strategy to identify low risk patients for future arrhythmic events. Conclusion: Sudden death must be a target of the therapy in the patients with preserved heart failure. Efforts should be done with the objective to identify higher risk patients and search for the better risk stratification strategy, and after that, the definition of the benefit or not, of the invasive therapy as ICD.

Sudden death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and beyond: an elusive target

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents half of HF patients, who are more likely older, women, and hypertensive. Mortality rates in HFpEF are higher compared with age- and comorbidity-matched non-HF controls and lower than in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); the majority (50-70%) are cardiovascular (CV) deaths. Among CV deaths, sudden death (SD) (~ 35%) and HF-death (~ 20%) are the leading cardiac modes of death; however, proportionally, CV deaths, SD, and HF-deaths are lower in HFpEF, while non-CV deaths constitute a higher proportion of deaths in HFpEF (30-40%) than in HFrEF (~ 15%). Importantly, the underlying mechanism of SD has not been clearly elucidated and non-arrhythmic SD may be more prominent in HFpEF than in HFrEF. Furthermore, there is no specific strategy for identifying high-risk patients, probably due to wide heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology of HFpEF and a plethora of comorbidities in this population. Thus, the management of HFpEF remains problematic due to paucity of data on the clinical benefits of current therapies, which focus on symptom relief and reduction of HF-hospitalization by controlling fluid retention and managing risk-factors and comorbidities. Matching a specific pathophysiology or mode of death with available and novel therapies may improve outcomes in HFpEF. However, this still remains an elusive target, as we need more information on determinants of SD. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have changed the landscape of SD prevention in HFrEF; if ICDs are to be applied to HFpEF, there must be a coordinated effort to identify and select high-risk patients.

Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies Delivered 5 Years After End of Service

We present the case of a 57-year-old man with a primary prevention internal cardioverter-defibrillator for severe nonischemic cardiomyopathy. At the time of elective replacement indicator, systolic function had fully recovered, and his generator was not changed. Nearly 5 years post–elective replacement indicator he received appropriate internal cardioverter-defibrillator therapies during a myocardial infarction. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)

Sudden Arrhythmic Death at the Higher End of the Heart Failure Spectrum

The risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is high in heart failure (HF) patients. Sudden arrhythmic death (SAD) is a frequent cause of exit in HF patients at the lower end of the HF spectrum, and implantable cardioverter–defibrillators have been recommended to prevent these life-threatening rhythm disturbances in select patients. However, less is known regarding the cause of SCD in patients at the upper end of the HF spectrum, despite the fact that the majority of out-of-hospital SCD victims have unknown or near-normal/normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). In this review, we report the epidemiology, summarize the mechanisms, discuss the diagnostic challenges, and propose a stepwise approach for the prevention of SAD in HF with near-normal/normal LVEF.

Assessment of the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline Recommendations for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Cardiac Sarcoidosis

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are used to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. The most recent recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in these patients are in the 2017 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death. These recommendations, based on observational studies or expert opinion, have not been assessed. We aimed to assess them.

METHODS

We performed a large retrospective cohort study of patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis and known or suspected cardiac sarcoidosis that underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were followed for a composite end point of significant ventricular arrhythmia or sudden cardiac death. The discriminatory performance of the Guideline recommendations was tested using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analyses. The optimal cutoff for the extent of late gadolinium enhancement predictive of the composite end point was determined using the Youden index.

RESULTS

In 290 patients, the class I and IIa recommendations identified all patients who experienced the composite end point during a median follow-up of 3.0 years. Patients meeting class I recommendations had a significantly higher incidence of the composite end point than those meeting class IIa recommendations. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35% with >5.7% late gadolinium enhancement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging was as sensitive as and significantly more specific than LVEF >35% with any late gadolinium enhancement. Patients meeting 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with the need for a permanent pacemaker and LVEF >35% with late gadolinium enhancement >5.7%, had high annualized event rates. Excluding 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with syncope and LVEF >35% with inducible ventricular arrhythmia, resulted in improved discrimination for the composite end point.

CONCLUSIONS

We assessed the Guideline recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with known or suspected cardiac sarcoidosis and identified topics for future research.

Association Between Inpatient Echocardiography Use and Outcomes in Adult Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend that patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo echocardiography for assessment of cardiac structure and ejection fraction, but little is known about the association between echocardiography as used in routine clinical management of AMI and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between risk-standardized hospital rates of transthoracic echocardiography and outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study of data from 397 US hospitals that contributed to the Premier Healthcare Informatics inpatient database from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes to identify 98 999 hospital admissions for patients with AMI. Data were analyzed between October 2017 and January 2019.

EXPOSURES

Rates of transthoracic echocardiography.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Inpatient mortality, length of stay, total inpatient costs, and 3-month readmission rate.

RESULTS

Among the 397 hospitals with more than 25 admissions for AMI in 2014, a total of 98 999 hospital admissions for AMI were identified for analysis (38.2% women; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [13.6] years), of which 69 652 (70.4%) had at least 1 transthoracic echocardiogram performed. The median (IQR) hospital risk-standardized rate of echocardiography was 72.5% (62.6%-79.1%). In models that adjusted for hospital and patient characteristics, no difference was found in inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.19) or 3-month readmission (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.10) between the highest and lowest quartiles of echocardiography use (median risk-standardized echocardiography use rates of 83% vs 54%, respectively). However, hospitals with the highest rates of echocardiography had modestly longer mean lengths of stay (0.23 days; 95% CI, 0.04-0.41; P = .01) and higher mean costs ($3164; 95% CI, $1843-$4485; P < .001) per admission compared with hospitals in the lowest quartile of use. Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with AMI, hospitals in the quartile with the highest rates of echocardiography showed greater hospital costs and length of stay but few differences in clinical outcomes compared with hospitals in the quartile with the lowest rates of echocardiography. These findings suggest that more selective use of echocardiography might be used without adversely affecting clinical outcomes, particularly in hospitals with high rates of echocardiography use.

When Is It Safe Not to Reimplant an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator at the Time of Battery Depletion?

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in various patient populations. Although data on the outcomes of initial ICD implants are abundant, data on ICD replacements, especially in patients with improved left ventricular (LV) function, are scarce. Therefore, it is not known when it is safe to not replace an ICD that has reached the end of battery life. This article reviews data on patients with primary prevention ICDs who have improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up and provides some guidance, based on the available evidence, related to circumstances when replacement of an ICD may be forgone.

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.

Reimplantation After Lead Removal

The number of implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly in the last 30 years, which has led to an upsurge in CIED complications, such as infection and lead malfunction requiring CIED extraction. The decision-making process of CIED reimplantation requires meticulous planning that includes careful consideration of several aspects: the reason for extraction, the indication for CIED reimplantation, patients' wishes, timing of reimplantation, the need for a bridging device, and the type and location of device to be reimplanted. In this article, the authors review this decision-making process and the necessary steps to achieve optimal patient outcomes.