Non-invasive Wedensky modulation within the QRS complex

The Wedensky test predicts malignant ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

Better tools are needed for detection of future malignant ventricular arrhythmias post myocardial infarct (MI). Wedensky Modulation (WM) is a new semi-invasive method: A short low-amplitude electrical impulse is applied synchronized to the QRS between a precordial and dorsal thoracic patch, and changes in the following QRS-T are registered.

DESIGN

A total of 357 (MI) ICD patients underwent WM testing. QRS-T wavelet analysis provided WM Indexes for the QRS complex (WMI-R) and T wave (WMI-T). Outcome was the time to first occurrence of appropriate device therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. Patients were followed at 6-month intervals for 2 years.

RESULTS

No arrhythmia was induced by the testing. Two-year appropriate arrhythmia treatment occurred in 35% (WMI-R positive) versus 25% (WMI-R negative, p = 0.014), and. 45% versus 26% (p = 0.001) for WMI-T positive versus negative. Two-year event rates of WMI-R or WMI-T positive versus WMI-R and WMI-T negative were 36% versus 22% (p = 0.004). In Cox proportional hazard model, the combination of WMI-R and WMI-T was the only statistically significant event predictor (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmic events could be predicted by the WM test. In combination with other risk factors WMI may be useful in these patients.

Noninvasive risk stratification after myocardial infarction: rationale, current evidence and the need for definitive trials

Despite advances in therapies for myocardial infarction (MI), death attributed to a cardiac arrest from ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) remains an important problem. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective in preventing death from VT/VF, but reliably identifying which post-MI patients would benefit from an ICD remains a major challenge. Beyond the initial post-MI period, the presence of significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, alone or in combination with the induction of sustained VT/VF during invasive testing, is the only proven means of selecting patients for a prophylactic ICD. However, these approaches identify only a fraction of those at risk. Furthermore, most patients with significant LV dysfunction after MI have a low, near-term risk of VT/VF. Noninvasive risk stratification tools have been developed to better identify patients likely to benefit from an ICD. To date, none of these tools has been proven useful in this regard. The factors leading to a cardiac arrest are complex, and a single test is unlikely to reliably predict risk. Noninvasive assessment of cardiac structure, conduction and repolarization along with autonomic modulation appear to be useful in predicting the risk of a cardiac arrest after MI, particularly when assessed in combination. However, randomized trials assessing the efficacy of ICD therapy in patients identified as being at risk are required. Until such data are available, significant LV dysfunction alone and in combination with the induction of VT/VF during invasive testing in the nonacute post-MI period remain the only proven methods to guide prophylactic ICD therapy.