HRS/ACC/AHA Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Patients Who Are Not Included or Not Well Represented in Clinical Trials

Prognostic Value of Entropy Derived from Late Gadolinium Enhancement Images to Adverse Cardiac Events in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To explore the prognostic value of entropy derived from late gadolinium enhancement images on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants with MI underwent 3.0T CMR were retrospectively enrolled. CMR parameters, including the entropy of infarct core (IC), peri-infarct border zone (BZ), and infarct core and peri-infarct border zone (IBZ) were analyzed. Patients were divided into the No-MACE group and the MACE group according to the absence or presence of MACE during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included, among whom 51 patients without MACE and 33 patients with MACE. The MACE group showed higher IC mass, IBZ mass, IC entropy, BZ entropy, IBZ entropy, and LV entropy and lower LVEF than those of the NO-MACE group. LVEF, BZ entropy, and IBZ entropy were independent predictors of MACE (p < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the predictive values of BZ entropy with AUC of 0.860, IBZ entropy with AUC of 0.930, the combined model of LVEF and BZ entropy with AUC of 0.923, and the combined model of LVEF and IBZ entropy with AUC of 0.954 were higher than that of LVEF with AUC of 0.797. Delong test illustrated there was no significant difference in AUC among the three models with AUC > 0.900 (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BZ entropy and IBZ entropy were noninvasive parameters for better risk stratification of post-MI patients. MI Patients with MACE showed higher BZ entropy and IBZ entropy than patients without MACE.

Longitudinal Outcomes Associated With Non-Evidence-Based Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Medicare Beneficiaries (From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with recent myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization and those with newly diagnosed or severe heart failure (HF) are considered non-evidence-based, as defined by pivotal randomized clinical trials. Although non-evidence-based ICDs have been associated previously with greater risk of in-hospital adverse events, longitudinal outcomes are not known. We used Medicare-linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to identify patients discharged alive following first-time primary prevention ICD implantations performed between 2010 and 2013. We compared longitudinal outcomes, including all-cause mortality and all-cause hospital readmission among patients receiving non-evidence-based versus evidence-based ICDs, up to 4.75 years after implantation, using multivariable time-to-event analyses. Of 71,666 ICD implantations, 9,609 (13.4%) were classified as non-evidence-based. Compared to patients receiving evidence-based ICDs, non-evidence-based ICD recipients had greater mortality risk at 90 days (HR = 1.44, CI: 1.37 - 1.52, p <0.0001) and at 1 year (HR = 1.19, CI: 1.15 - 1.24, p <0.0001), but similar mortality risk at 3 years (HR = 1.03, CI: 0.98 - 1.08, p = 0.2630). Risk of all-cause hospitalization was higher in patients with non-evidence-based ICDs at 90 days (HR = 1.17, CI: 1.14 - 1.20, p <0.0001), but the difference diminished at 1 year (HR = 1.04, CI 1.00 - 1.07, p = 0.0272) and at 3 years (HR = 0.94, CI: 0.90 - 0.99, p = 0.0105). In conclusion, among patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantations between 2010 and 2013, those with non-evidence-based ICDs were at increased risk of mortality and readmission during longitudinal follow-up. Differences in the risk of mortality and hospitalization were highest in the first year following device implantation.

The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and sudden cardiac death prevention: indications, device selection, and outcome

Multiple randomized multicentre clinical trials have established the role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as the mainstay in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention. These trials have focused mainly on heart failure patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction and were mostly conducted two decades ago, whereas a more recent trial has provided conflicting results. Therefore, much remains to be determined on how best to balance the identification of patients at high risk of SCD together with who would benefit most from ICD implantation in a contemporary setting. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have also evolved from the simple, defibrillation-only devices implanted surgically to more advanced technologies of multi-chamber devices, with physiologic bradycardic pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrial and ventricular therapeutic pacing algorithms, and subcutaneous ICDs. These multiple options necessitate individualized approach to device selection and programming. This review will focus on the current knowledge on selection of patients for ICD treatment, device selection and programming, and future directions of implantable device therapy for SCD prevention.

Collapse

Systematic review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome.

AIM

Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

METHODS

Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; p=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; p<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; p<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; p<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; p<0.001).

Sudden death risk stratification in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy using old and new tools: a clinical challenge

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification for sudden cardiac death in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) remains a clinical challenge. Areas covered: Currently, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), severity of heart failure symptoms according to NYHA classification, and morphology and duration of the QRS complex guide device management in these patients with implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Recently, the results of a randomized trial stirred some controversy regarding the utility of ICD in NIDCM patients, however, a subsequent meta-analysis confirmed prior findings of the survival-prolonging benefit of device therapy. Newer risk markers, like late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) detecting myocardial fibrosis, are encouraging in improving risk stratification in these patients. Furthermore, resurgence of an old tool, the electrophysiology study (EPS), and technical advances in genetics in identifying high-risk familial NIDCM, appear promising in this direction. Expert commentary: Based on old and new tools, a more individualized approach may be applied in NIDCM patients, whereby CMR, EPS and genetics may provide further guidance, particularly in patients with LVEF>35%. These issues are herein reviewed and a practical algorithm is proposed for risk stratification and device implantation in NIDCM patients with LVEF below and above 35%.

Heart Rhythm Society: expert consensus statements-part 1

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2-part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.

The transition to value-based care

Delivery of medical care is evolving rapidly worldwide. Over the past several years in the USA, there has been a rapid shift in reimbursement from a simple fee-for-service model to more complex models that attempt to link payment to quality and value. Change in any large system can be difficult, but with medicine, the transition to a value-based system has been particularly hard to implement because both quality and cost are difficult to quantify. Professional societies and other medical groups are developing different programs in an attempt to define high value care. However, applying a national standard of value for any treatment is challenging, since value varies from person to person, and the individual benefit must remain the central tenet for delivering best patient-centered medical care. Regardless of the specific operational features of the rapidly changing healthcare environment, physicians must first and foremost always remain patient advocates.

Effect of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Men Eligible for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death is not routinely recommended within 90 days of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) because of the possibility of an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to>35% after revascularization. We sought to determine the incidence and predictors of EF improvement to >35% after isolated CABG in patients who had a preoperative EF ≤35%. We studied 375 patients who underwent CABG at a tertiary institution and had an echocardiogram preoperatively and postoperatively. Of these, 74 patients (20%) with a preoperative EF ≤35% were included in this analysis. Improvement in EF was defined as postoperative EF >35%. In the overall study population (n = 74), mean EF improved from 28 ± 6% preoperatively to 36 ± 12% postoperatively (p <0.0001). A total of 38 patients (51%) had postoperative improvement in EF to >35% (mean EF in these patients increased from 30 ± 5% to 46 ± 8%; p <0.0001). Patients with EF improvement had a higher preoperative EF than those with no improvement (30 ± 5% vs 26 ± 7%, p <0.005). Improvement in EF was 5 times more likely in patients with preoperative EF 26% to 35% (odds ratio 4.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 14.1; p = 0.003) than those with preoperative EF ≤25%. Other clinical characteristics were not significantly different between patients with versus without EF improvement. In conclusion, more than half of the ICD-eligible patients who underwent CABG improved their EF to >35% after surgery and became ineligible for a primary prevention ICD. EF improvement was unlikely in patients with preoperative EF <25%.

Prevalence and outcomes of patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention not based on guidelines

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation outside practice guidelines remains contentious, particularly during the mandated waiting periods in patients with recent cardiac events. We assessed the prevalence and outcomes of non-guideline-based (NGB) ICD implantations in a tertiary academic medical center, with a specific focus on adjudication of arrhythmia events. All patients who underwent initial primary prevention ICD implantation at our institution from 2004 to 2012 were categorized as having received guideline-based (GB) or NGB implants and were retrospectively assessed for first episode of appropriate ICD therapy and total mortality. Of 807 patients, 137 (17.0%) received NGB implants. During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with NGB implants had similar times to first appropriate ICD therapy (median time to event 1.94 vs 2.17 years in patients with GB implants, p = 0.20). After multivariable analysis, patients with NGB implants remained at higher risk for death (hazard ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.2, p = 0.03) but not appropriate ICD therapy (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3, p = 0.51). Furthermore, only 1 of 125 patients who underwent implant within the 40-day waiting period after myocardial infarction or 3-month waiting period after revascularization or cardiomyopathy diagnosis received an appropriate therapy within this period. In conclusion, few patients received NGB ICD implants in our academic medical center. Although these patients have similar long-term risk of receiving appropriate ICD therapy compared with patients with GB implants, this risk is very low during the waiting periods mandated by clinical practice guidelines. These results suggest that there is little need to rush into implanting ICDs during these waiting periods.

Ten advances defining sudden cardiac death

Recent advances in the field of sudden cardiac death (SCD) include the recognition that 50% of SCD occurs as initial presentation of any heart disease and that many of these individuals may have been considered to be low risk. The presenting dysrhythmia in patients with cardiac arrests has changed over time such that pulseless electrical activity and asystole is more frequently encountered as compared with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. While the use of implantable defibrillators has been a tremendous advance in patients at risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias, the use of automatic external defibrillators and wearable defibrillators is a recent advance that allows for potential SCD prevention in more patients. Finally, the area of medical genetics is an evolving discipline, which may enable clinicians to better individualize therapy for patients with genetic predispositions to cardiac dysrhythmias.

Optimal pacing for right ventricular and biventricular devices: minimizing, maximizing, and right ventricular/left ventricular site considerations

The results from numerous clinical studies provide guidance for optimizing outcomes related to RV or biventricular pacing in the pacemaker and ICD populations. (1) Programming algorithms to minimize RV pacing is imperative in patients with dual-chamber pacemakers who have intrinsic AV conduction or intermittent AV conduction block. (2) Dual-chamber ICDs should be avoided in candidates without an indication for bradycardia pacing. (3) Alternate RV septal pacing sites may be considered at the time of pacemaker implantation. (4) Biventricular pacing may be beneficial in some patients with mild LV dysfunction. (5) LV lead placement at the site of latest LV activation is desirable. (6) Programming CRT systems to achieve biventricular/LV pacing >98.5% is important. (7) Protocols for AV and VV optimization in patients with CRT are not recommended after device implantation but may be considered for CRT nonresponders. (8) Novel algorithms to maximize the benefit of CRT are in evolution further.

The clinical challenge of preventing sudden cardiac death immediately after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Unfortunately, of all patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction (MI), usually in the form of ST-elevation MI, 25-35% will die of sudden cardiac death (SCD) before receiving medical attention, most often from ventricular fibrillation. For patients who reach the hospital, prognosis is considerably better and has improved over the years. Reperfusion therapy, best attained with primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared to thrombolysis, has made a big difference in reducing the risk of SCD early and late after ST-elevation MI. In-hospital SCD due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias is manageable, with either preventive measures or drugs or electrical cardioversion. There is general agreement for secondary prevention of SCD post-MI with implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) when malignant ventricular arrhythmias occur late (>48 h) after an MI, and are not due to reversible or correctable causes. The major challenge remains that of primary prevention, that is, how to prevent SCD during the first 1-3 months after ST-elevation MI for patients who have low left ventricular ejection fraction and are not candidates for an ICD according to current guidelines, due to the results of two studies, which did not show any benefits of early (<40 days after an MI) ICD implantation. Two recent documents may provide direction as to how to bridge the gap for this early post-MI period. Both recommend an electrophysiology study to guide implantation of an ICD, at least for those developing syncope or non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, who have an inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia at the electrophysiology study. An ICD is also recommended for patients with indication for a permanent pacemaker due to bradyarrhythmias, who also meet primary prevention criteria for SCD.