Benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy after generator replacement in patients with Brugada syndrome

Predictors of late arrhythmic events after generator replacement in Brugada syndrome treated with prophylactic ICD

Introduction

Predictors of late life-threatening arrhythmic events in Brugada syndrome (BrS) patients who received a prophylactic ICD implantation remain to be evaluated. The aim of the present long-term multicenter study was to assess the incidence and clinical-electrocardiographic predictors of late life-threatening arrhythmic events in BrS patients with a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and undergoing generator replacement (GR).

Methods

The study population included 105 patients (75% males; mean age 45 ± 14years) who received a prophylactic ICD and had no arrhythmic event up to first GR.

Results

The median period from first ICD implantation to last follow-up was 155 (128-181) months and from first ICD Implantation to the GR was 84 (61-102) months. During a median follow-up of 57 (38-102) months after GR, 10 patients (9%) received successful appropriate ICD intervention (1.6%/year). ICD interventions included shock on ventricular fibrillation (n = 8 patients), shock on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient), and antitachycardia pacing on ventricular tachycardia (n = 1 patient). At survival analysis, history of atrial fibrillation (log-rank test; P = 0.02), conduction disturbances (log-rank test; P < 0.01), S wave in lead I (log-rank test; P = 0.01) and first-degree atrioventricular block (log-rank test; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with the occurrence of late appropriate ICD intervention. At Cox-regression multivariate analysis, S-wave in lead I was the only independent predictor of late appropriate ICD intervention (HR: 9.17; 95%CI: 1.15-73.07; P = 0.03).

Conclusions

The present study indicates that BrS patient receiving a prophylactic ICD may experience late appropriate intervention after GR in a clinically relevant proportion of cases. S-wave in lead I at the time of first clinical evaluation was the only independent predictor of persistent risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events. These findings support the need for GR at the end of service regardless of previous appropriate intervention, mostly in BrS patients with conduction abnormalities.

Do all patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator need a generator change? A health service evaluation of patients who underwent generator changes from a single tertiary center

BACKGROUND

The patient characteristics, therapy received and outcomes after one or more implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator changes from contemporary practice is not well known.

METHODS

We conducted a health service evaluation of patients who underwent ICD implantation and generator change. Patients who had generator changes from February 2016 to October 2019 were identified from our database and electronic records were reviewed for patient characteristics, number of generator changes, receipt of therapy and death.

RESULTS

Our database included 88 patients with a generator change. A total of 22 patients (25.0%) received dual chamber ICD, 10 patients (11.4%) received single chamber ICD, 54 patients (61.3%) received cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator and 2 patients (2.3%) received subcutaneous ICD. A second generator change occurred in 18 patients and a third generator changes was performed in 6 patients. There were 29 deaths and a follow up period of 9.4 ± 2.9 years. From implant to initial generator change 39 patients had appropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP), 6 patient had inappropriate ATP, 29 patients had appropriate shocks and 5 patients had an inappropriate shock. Between the 1st and 2nd generator change and the 2nd and 3rd there were no cases of inappropriate ATP or shock. Overall, 42 patients out of the 88 had appropriate therapy (47.7%) and 7 patients had inappropriate therapy (8.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with ICDs do not receive therapy and a minority have inappropriate therapy which typically occur before the first generator change as we observed no inappropriate therapy beyond the first generator change.

Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcome After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Patients With Brugada Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to summarize the clinical outcome of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with Brugada syndrome.

BACKGROUND

Brugada syndrome is characterized by cardiac conduction abnormalities and a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias that may result in sudden cardiac death. A complete overview of clinical outcome, appropriate and inappropriate interventions, and complications after ICD therapy in patients with Brugada syndrome is lacking.

METHODS

The online MEDLINE database was searched for published reports and yielded 828 studies on outcome and complications after ICD therapy in patients with Brugada syndrome. After careful evaluation, 22 studies including a total of 1,539 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 1,539 patients (mean age 45 years, 18% women) underwent ICD implantation for primary (79%) or secondary (21%) prevention of sudden cardiac death. During a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, the appropriate and inappropriate ICD intervention rates were 3.1 and 3.3 per 100 person-years, respectively. The cardiac mortality rate was 0.03 per 100 person-years and noncardiac mortality rate was 0.3 per 100 person-years. ICD-related complications per 100 person-years consisted of lead malfunction (1.6), psychological complication (1.3), infection (0.6), lead dislocation (0.4), and any complication (0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with Brugada syndrome judged to be at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia may significantly benefit from ICD therapy, which is associated with an appropriate ICD intervention rate of 3.1 per 100 person-years and low cardiac and noncardiac mortality rates. Inappropriate ICD interventions and ICD-related complications may lead to considerable morbidity.

Age of First Arrhythmic Event in Brugada Syndrome

Background

Data on the age at first arrhythmic event (AE) in Brugada syndrome are from limited patient cohorts. The aim of this study is 2-fold: (1) to define the age at first AE in a large cohort of patients with Brugada syndrome, and (2) to assess the influence of the mode of AE documentation, sex, and ethnicity on the age at first AE.

Methods and Results

A survey of 23 centers from 10 Western and 4 Asian countries gathered data from 678 patients with Brugada syndrome (91.3% men) with first AE documented at time of aborted cardiac arrest (group A, n=426) or after prophylactic implantable cardioverter–defibrillator implantation (group B, n=252). The vast majority (94.2%) of the patients were 16 to 70 years old at the time of AE, whereas pediatric (<16 years) and elderly patients (>70 years) comprised 4.3% and 1.5%, respectively. Peak AE rate occurred between 38 and 48 years (mean, 41.9±14.8; range, 0.27–84 years). Group A patients were younger than in Group B by a mean of 6.7 years (46.1±13.2 versus 39.4±15.0 years; P <0.001). In adult patients (≥16 years), women experienced AE 6.5 years later than men ( P =0.003). Whites and Asians exhibited their AE at the same median age (43 years).

Conclusions

SABRUS (Survey on Arrhythmic Events in Brugada Syndrome) presents the first analysis on the age distribution of AE in Brugada syndrome, suggesting 2 age cutoffs (16 and 70 years) that might be important for decision-making. It also allows gaining insights on the influence of mode of arrhythmia documentation, patient sex, and ethnic origin on the age at AE.