Syncope in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: incidence, prediction and implications for driving restrictions

Vasovagal Syncope at Work: A Narrative Review for an Occupational Management Proposal

Syncope is a complex clinical manifestation that presents considerable diagnostic difficulties and, consequently, numerous critical issues regarding fitness for work, especially for high-risk tasks. To date, it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of syncope on work and public safety since it is highly improbable to identify loss of consciousness as the fundamental cause of work or driving-related accidents, especially fatal injuries. Working at high-risk jobs such as public transport operators, in high elevations, or with exposure to moving parts, construction equipment, fireworks, or explosives demand attention and total awareness. Currently, no validated criteria or indicators are available for occupational risk stratification of a patient with reflex syncope to return to work. By drawing inspiration from the updated literature, this narrative review intends to summarise the leading knowledge required regarding the return to work for subjects affected by syncope. According to the available data, the authors highlighted some key findings, summarised in macro-items, such as defined risk stratification for vasovagal accidents, return to work after a critical event, and a focus on pacemaker (PM) implementation. Lastly, the authors proposed a flowchart for occupational physicians to help them manage the cases of workers affected by syncope and exposed to levels of risk that could represent a danger to the workers' health.

Beta-blocker therapy is associated with a lower incidence of syncope due to fast ventricular tachycardias among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with left ventricular dysfunction: results from a multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients, a substantial proportion of syncopes are due to fast ventricular tachycardias (FVTs). In the experimental models of ventricular tachycardias, the arterial vasoconstriction plays an important role in recovering the arterial pressure. Since beta-blockers increase vascular resistance, we hypothesized that beta-blockers could reduce the occurrence of syncope due to FVTs. Our objective was to determine the relationship between the beta-blocker therapy and the incidence of syncope in FVT (cycle length [CL] 250-320 ms) occurring in ICD patients. Slow VTs were excluded because of the lack of symptoms and VF episodes because of the small number.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this multicenter study, 226 patients (LVEF 31 ± 10%) with single-chamber ICDs were followed. FVT programming was standardized, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) as initial therapy. Symptoms were correlated with ICD-stored episode data of FVTs. The beta-blocker therapy was determined at each FVT presentation. We analyzed 289 FVTs (CL 291 ± 21 ms; 77% under beta-blockers; median of the duration:8 s) occurring consecutively in 52 ICD patients. The frequency of FVT-related syncope was 22 (7.6%). Beta-blockers were associated with a lower heart rate preceding FVT (85 ± 22 vs. 94 ± 23 bpm; p = 0.009), a higher ATP effectiveness (86 vs. 57%; p < 0.001), a lower duration of episodes (8 [2] vs. 10 [14] s; p < 0.001), and a lower incidence of FVT-related syncope (4.5 vs. 18%; p < 0.001). By logistic regression, a FVT > 8 s (OR = 21; p = 0.003) and the beta-blocker therapy (OR = 0.3; p = 0.012) were found as independent predictors of syncope.

CONCLUSION

Among ICD patients with left ventricular dysfunction, beta-blockers are associated with a lower incidence of FVT-related syncope.

Inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks-incidence, effect, and implications for driver licensing

Purpose

Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have an ongoing risk of sudden incapacitation that may cause traffic accidents. However, there are limited data on the magnitude of this risk after inappropriate ICD therapies. We studied the rate of syncope associated with inappropriate ICD therapies to provide a scientific basis for formulating driving restrictions.

Methods

Inappropriate ICD therapy event data between 1997 and 2014 from 50 Japanese institutions were analyzed retrospectively. The annual risk of harm (RH) to others posed by a driver with an ICD was calculated for private driving habits. We used a commonly employed annual RH to others of 5 in 100,000 (0.005%) as an acceptable risk threshold.

Results

Of the 4089 patients, 772 inappropriate ICD therapies occurred in 417 patients (age 61 ± 15 years, 74% male, and 65% secondary prevention). Patients experiencing inappropriate therapies had a mean number of 1.8 ± 1.5 therapy episodes during a median follow-up period of 3.9 years. No significant differences were found in the age, sex, or number of inappropriate therapies between patients receiving ICDs for primary or secondary prevention. Only three patients (0.7%) experienced syncope associated with inappropriate therapies. The maximum annual RH to others after the first therapy in primary and secondary prevention patients was calculated to be 0.11 in 100,000 and 0.12 in 100,000, respectively.

Conclusions

We found that the annual RH from driving was far below the commonly cited acceptable risk threshold. Our data provide useful information to supplement current recommendations on driving restrictions in ICD patients with private driving habits.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10840-017-0272-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Driving restrictions in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and pacemakers

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) improve the survival in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. However, these patients have an ongoing risk of sudden incapacitation that may cause harm to individuals and others when driving. Considerable disagreement exists about whether and when these patients should be allowed to resume driving after ICD therapies. This information is critical for the management decisions to avoid future potentially lethal incidents and unnecessary restrictions for ICD patients. The cardiac implantable device committee of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society reassessed the risk of driving for ICD patients based on the literature and domestic data. We reviewed the driving restrictions of ICD patients in various regions and here present updated Japanese driving restrictions.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance-GUIDEd management of mild to moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction (CMR GUIDE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure occurs in those with mild-moderate left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LVEF 36-50%) who under current guidelines are ineligible for primary prevention implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Recent data suggest that cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) evidence of replacement fibrosis forms a substrate for malignant arrhythmia and therefore potentially identifies a subgroup at increased risk of SCD. Our hypothesis is that among patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction, a CMR-guided management strategy for ICD insertion based on the presence of scar or fibrosis is superior to a current strategy of standard care.

METHODS/DESIGN

CMR GUIDE is a prospective, multicenter randomized control trial enrolling patients with mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction and CMR evidence of fibrosis on optimal heart failure therapy. Participants will be randomized to receive either a primary prevention ICD or an implantable loop recorder (ILR). The primary endpoint is the time to SCD or hemodynamically significant ventricular arrhythmia (VF or VT) during an average 4-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints include quality of life assessed by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, heart failure related hospitalizations, and a cost-utility analysis. Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT01918215.

DISCUSSION

CMR GUIDE trial will add substantially to our understanding of the role of myocardial fibrosis and the risk of developing life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. If the superiority of a CMR-guided approach over standard care is proven, it may change international clinical guidelines, with the potential to considerably increase survival in this growing patient population.

Predictors and Proarrhythmic Consequences of Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, inappropriate shocks can lead to multiple adverse effects. The aim of this study was to clarify the predictors of inappropriate ICD shocks and their proarrhythmic consequences.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively studied 316 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation from December 2000 to December 2011. Of them, 70 (22%) experienced inappropriate ICD shocks without proarrhythmia requiring some intervention; 2 patients (0.6%) had proarrhythmic inappropriate ICD therapy by antitachycardia pacing (ATP), thereby calculated to be 0.18% of patients per year. However, they did not have syncope from this inappropriate ATP. Multivariate analysis identified younger age (≤56 years: hazard ratio [HR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.77, P=0.043), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (HR 3.00, 95% CI 1.64-5.31, P=0.0002), stroke (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11-4.47, P=0.024), and no diuretic use (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.03-2.93, P=0.039) as independent predictors of the occurrence of inappropriate ICD shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Young age, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, stroke, and no use of diuretics were independently associated with inappropriate ICD shocks. Proarrhythmic inappropriate ICD therapy was observed with an annual incidence of 0.18% by ATP.

Sudden death risk in syncope: the role of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Syncope is generally benign but when it is due to an underlying cardiovascular condition, the prognosis can be guarded. Patients with syncope may be at risk of dying suddenly from a ventricular arrhythmia especially if the collapse is caused by a poorly-tolerated, self-terminating, ventricular tachycardia (VT). If a similar VT recurs, and persists, it could initiate cardiac arrest, leading to sudden cardiac death. However, distinguishing which patient with syncope may benefit most from implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, which can stop life-threatening and poorly tolerated VT, thereby preventing sudden cardiac death, remains an ongoing challenge. Careful assessment of the patient's underlying cardiovascular conditions, scrupulous attention to historical detail to assess potential causes for syncope, and risk stratification based upon clinical characteristics and short and long-term risks can help. This review focuses on the sudden death risk in patients with syncope and explores the role of the ICD to treat ventricular arrhythmias, prevent symptoms, and prevent death.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With and Without Defibrillator in a Commercial Truck Driver with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure

Commercial drivers warrant tighter restrictions to their driving privileges than private drivers. Patients with cardiac disease who are at risk of consciousness-impairing arrhythmias are not allowed to drive commercially. Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure symptoms are permanently disqualified from commercial driving. A biventricular pacemaker without defibrillator can improve symptoms and mortality in selected patients with heart failure. Biventricular pacing may have antiarrhythmic effects that may reduce the added benefit of a defibrillator. Motor vehicle collisions resulting from arrhythmic events are infrequent. The interests of public safety must outweigh individual liberties when driving safety is in question.

Driving restrictions after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: an evidence-based approach

Aims

Little evidence is available regarding restrictions from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or following first appropriate or inappropriate shock. The purpose of the current analysis was to provide evidence for driving restrictions based on real-world incidences of shocks (appropriate and inappropriate).

Methods and results

A total of 2786 primary and secondary prevention ICD patients were included. The occurrence of shocks was noted during a median follow-up of 996 days (inter-quartile range, 428–1833 days). With the risk of harm (RH) formula, using the incidence of sudden cardiac incapacitation, the annual RH to others posed by a driver with an ICD was calculated. Based on Canadian data, the annual RH to others of 5 in 100 000 (0.005%) was used as a cut-off value. In both primary and secondary prevention ICD patients with private driving habits, no restrictions to drive directly following implantation, or an inappropriate shock are warranted. However, following an appropriate shock, these patients are at an increased risk to cause harm to other road users and therefore should be restricted to drive for a period of 2 and 4 months, respectively. In addition, all ICD patients with professional driving habits have a substantial elevated risk to cause harm to other road users during the complete follow-up after both implantation and shock and should therefore be restricted to drive permanently.

Conclusion

The current analysis provides a clinically applicable tool for guideline committees to establish evidence-based driving restrictions.

Defibrillation efficacy of a subcutaneous array lead: A case report

We report a case of Brugada syndrome with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) in whom a subcutaneous array lead was used to lower the DFT in combination with a transvenous right ventricular defibrillation lead. The patient had previously received pacemaker implantation due to sick sinus syndrome. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with a transvenous right ventricular defibrillation lead alone required a high DFT. A subcutaneous array lead improved defibrillation efficacy in combination with a right ventricular lead. These data suggest that a subcutaneous array lead facilitates implantation of an effective ICD lead system in patients requiring a high DFT.

Consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association: updated recommendations for driving by patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have an ongoing risk of sudden incapacitation that might cause harm to others while driving a car. Driving restrictions vary across different countries in Europe. The most recent recommendations for driving of ICD patients in Europe were published in 1997 and focused mainly on patients implanted for secondary prevention. In recent years there has been a vast increase in the number of patients with an ICD and in the percentage of patients implanted for primary prevention. The EHRA task force on ICD and driving was formed to reassess the risk of driving for ICD patients based on the literature available. The recommendations are summarized in the following table and are further explained in the document. [table: see text] Driving restrictions are perceived as difficult for patients and their families, and have an immediate consequence for their lifestyle. To increase the adherence to the driving restrictions, adequate discharge of education and follow-up of patients and family are pivotal. The task force members hope this document may serve as an instrument for European and national regulatory authorities to formulate uniform driving regulations.

Syncope following cardioverter defibrillator implantation in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia

AIMS

We sought to determine the incidence, mechanisms, and time to syncope recurrence in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SyMVT) treated with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Incidence and causes of syncope following ICD implantation in consecutive patients (n=26) with spontaneous SyMVT were compared with those found in consecutive patients (n=50) with spontaneous non-syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (NSyMVT). Patients with SyMVT had a higher incidence of syncope (46% patients) than those with NSyMVT (2% patients) at 31+/-21 and 34+/-23 months follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.42; P=0.0001). Among the former, four patients (15%) had non-arrhythmic syncope and eight patients had arrhythmic syncope (31%), which was associated with either ICD proarrhythmia (seven episodes of VT acceleration or VF degeneration by ATP or low/high-energy shocks in three patients) or spontaneous VT and VF (five episodes in five patients). Median time to the first arrhythmic syncope was 376 days. Arrhythmic syncope presented after a first non-syncopal VT recurrence in six patients (75%).

CONCLUSION

Syncope following ICD implantation is common in patients with SyMVT in contrast to patients with NSyMVT. Late syncope presentation supports reassessment of driving restrictions in this setting.

Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator rhythm strip data as used in interpretation of a motor vehicle accident

The automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) is an electronic device that monitors the rhythm of the heart and, upon detecting a life-threatening arrhythmia, shocks the heart in an attempt to restore a normal rhythm. The AICD will electronically store the information of the event. Later, the AICD can be "interrogated" and the information electronically retrieved, with a printout of the rhythm strip obtained. The interrogation is fairly simple and involves a magnetic device placed over the AICD, which in turn is connected to a portable computer, which, with specialized software, can deliver the information in a usable form. Not only can information about the most recent shock be obtained, but also information about previous shocks can be retrieved. This case presentation highlights how such preterminal information retrieved from an AICD helped to interpret the circumstances leading to a death--in this case, a fatal motor vehicle accident. Additionally, driving restrictions that may be placed on individuals with AICDs are discussed.

Shock reduction using antitachycardia pacing for spontaneous rapid ventricular tachycardia in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can terminate some ventricular tachycardias (VTs) painlessly with antitachycardia pacing (ATP). ATP has not routinely been applied for VT >188 bpm because of concerns about efficacy, risk of acceleration, and delay of definitive shock therapy. This prospective, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy of empirical ATP to terminate fast VT (FVT; >188 bpm).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two hundred twenty coronary artery disease patients received ICDs for standard indications. Empirical, standardized therapy was programmed so that all FVT episodes (average cycle length [CL] 240 to 320 ms, 250 to 188 bpm) were treated with 2 ATP sequences (8-pulse burst pacing train at 88% of the FVT CL) before shock delivery. A total of 1100 episodes of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurred during a mean of 6.9+/-3.6 months of follow-up. Fifty-seven percent were classified as slow VT (CL>/=320 ms), 40% as FVT (240 ms</=CL<320 ms), and 3% as ventricular fibrillation (CL<240 ms). A total of 446 FVT episodes, mean CL=301+/-24 ms, occurred in 52 patients (median 2 episodes per patient). ATP terminated 396 FVT episodes (89%), with an adjusted efficacy of 77% (95% CI 68% to 83%). VT acceleration caused by ATP occurred in 10 FVT episodes (4%). FVT arrhythmic syncope occurred on 9 occasions (2%) in 4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

FVT (CL<320 ms) is common in ICD patients. ATP can terminate 3 of 4 of these episodes with a low incidence of acceleration and syncope. ATP for FVT may safely reduce the morbidity of painful shocks.

Syncope

Successful treatment of patients with syncope depends on the accuracy of the diagnosis, because syncope is a symptom, not a disease; diagnosis of the cause for syncope therefore creates a blueprint for treatment. Most experienced practitioners can diagnose the cause of syncope for less than half of their patients. Excessive and repeat testing is expensive and may not improve the chance of a correct diagnosis. Patient history is the key to the diagnosis. Treatment may vary from a lifestyle change to open heart surgery. The great challenge of treating patients with syncope is to provide cost-effective, safe therapy to those with a benign course and still provide needed treatment for those whose syncope is life threatening.

Recurrence of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator after the first device therapy: implications for antiarrhythmic therapy and driving restrictions. CARE Group

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether clinical or electrophysiologic characteristics could predict initial and subsequent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy.

BACKGROUND

Identification of markers to predict subsequent ICD therapy and symptoms after the first event could affect patient management.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 125 ICD patients followed for 408+/-321 days. Medications and ICD programming were not changed after first ICD therapy.

RESULTS

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy occurred in 58 patients (46%). Clinical features were as follows: mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 29%+/-15%; coronary artery disease 84%; presenting arrhythmia with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) in 68%. In a multivariate analysis the relative risk for ICD therapy in patients presenting with SMVT versus cardiac arrest (CA) was 2.57 (range, 1.32 to 5.01), and for patients with LVEF < or =25%, 1.95 (1.11 to 3.45), respectively (p < 0.05). Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was not predicted by any other variable. Forty-six patients had second ICD therapy. Mean time to second ICD therapy was only 66+/-93 days compared with 138+/-168 days for first ICD therapy (p < 0.05). No predictor for second ICD therapy was found. Regarding symptoms, impaired consciousness during initial ICD therapy was predicted only by SMVT cycle length <250 ms at electrophysiologic testing. In contrast, symptoms were similar between first and second ICD therapy (p = 0.0001). Of note, ventricular tachycardia cycle length preceding first and second ICD therapy was similar (r = 0.76, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

First ICD therapy tends to occur in patients presenting with SMVT and LVEF < or =25%. Subsequent therapy occurs sooner and is unpredictable, suggesting that antiarrhythmic drug therapy should be considered after the first symptomatic ICD therapy. Symptoms during first ICD therapy predict subsequent symptoms, and patients presenting with SMVT and asymptomatic first ICD therapy are at very low risk for future syncopal ICD therapy.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Current Progress and Management

With greater technologic advances during the past decade, use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has increased to more than 200,000 implants worldwide to date. Indications for ICD implant have expanded to include both patients who have survived sudden cardiac death (secondary prevention of cardiac arrest) and those who are at high risk for experiencing lethal arrhythmias (primary prevention of cardiac ar rest). Thus, it is likely that physicians will encounter defibrillators in their clinical practice and must be familiar with their indications for implant, basic opera tion, and long-term management of devices. Several prospective clinical trials have recently shown the long- term efficacy of ICD therapy at aborting sudden death in the high-risk patient population. Although still evolving, general guidelines and indications for ICD implant have been put forth and are discussed in this review. From the first defibrillation in humans during surgery in 1947 to the sophisticated dual-chamber pacing and memory functions of the modern device, ICD development has led to ever smaller devices with more complex technol ogy. The implant procedure of current ICDs parallels that used to place pacemakers. However, the anesthe sia team plays a vital role in initial ICD implantation by monitoring cardiopulmonary status during defibrilla tion threshold (DFT) testing. Additionally, long-term management of ICDs often requires repeat DFT testing with anesthesia involvement. Finally, possible electro magnetic (environmental) interactions with the ICD of which physicians should be aware are described in this article.

Clusters of ventricular tachycardias signify impaired survival in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and implantable cardioverter defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was undertaken to provide data on occurrence, significance and therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) clusters (VTCs) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

BACKGROUND

Data on the clinical significance of VTCs are lacking in patients with DCM and ICDs.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics of 106 consecutive patients with DCM and ICDs were prospectively collected, and chart reviews and episode data retrospectively analyzed. A VTC was defined as > or =3 sustained VTs/24 h.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 33+/-23 months, 73 patients (68.9%) had recurrent VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF), 43 patients (40.6%) suffered only single VTs and 30 patients (28.3%) experienced 52 clusters of VTs. Actuarial survival free of VT or VF was 44.6%, 33.0% and 26.5%, and survival free of VTC was 77.3%, 72.2% and 67.1% after one, two and three years, respectively. Independent predictors of VT clusters were heart failure before ICD implantation (p = 0.033), presenting monomorphic VT (p = 0.044), EF <0.40 (p = 0.014) and inducible mVT, especially with right bundle branch block and superior axis configuration (p<0.001). Survival free of recurrent VTCs was 50.8%, 38.1% and 19.0% after one, two and three years, respectively. Once a VTC had occurred, only 56.7%, 46.4%, 30.9% and 15.5% of patients survived and were not transplanted after one, two, three and four years, respectively. Survival was even more reduced if a VTC was associated with cardiac decompensation: 65.6% and 21.9% after one and two years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite antiarrhythmic intervention, clusters of VTs occur and recur frequently in patients with DCM. They signify impaired survival, especially if they are associated with cardiac decompensation, and may be a harbinger of progressive myocardial deterioration rather than a primarily arrhythmic problem. The benefit of ICD therapy may therefore be low in these patients.

Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: transition to home

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are highly effective in the identification and termination of malignant ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. It is anticipated that the number of patients receiving this device will increase because of major advancements in technology and the results of prospective controlled clinical trials. Major life changes occur after implantation of the device. Continued research is needed to identify concerns and needs of patients with ICDs and their families. Specific interventions must be tested to determine efficacy. Nurses must be able to provide education and psychologic support to assist patients in their successful transition to home.

Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in patients with an ICD: unlimited potential or replete with complexity and problems?

There are a number of novel ways in which implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) endpoints can be used in clinical trials to evaluate antiarrhythmic drugs. The advances in ICD technology (storage, retrieval, and accurate interpretation of ICD electrograms) expand the potential to include the use of an ICD endpoint as a clinical surrogate for sudden death. The ICD also provides the necessary safety net to test new drugs. The frequent need for antiarrhythmic drugs in patients already fitted with an ICD (e.g., for atrial fibrillation) necessitates knowledge of the drugs' effect on defibrillator threshold. There are interpretative problems and challenges associated with all types of ICD trials. A particular difficult issue is the degree to which the results of data on antiarrhythmic drug efficacy and safety acquired in the context of an ICD endpoint trial might be extrapolated to patient populations in which the device is not used. These and other challenging issues are discussed, with the goal of enhancing the design and interpretation of clinical trials featuring ICD endpoints.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable defibrillators have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Current defibrillators are small (<60 mL) and implanted with techniques similar to standard pacemakers. They provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, as well as antibradycardia pacing. Newer devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Randomized controlled trials have shown superior survival with implantable defibrillators than with antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Complications associated with implantable defibrillator therapy include infection, lead failure, and spurious shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Most patients adapt well to living with an implantable defibrillator, although driving often has to be restricted. Limited evidence suggests that implantable defibrillator therapy is cost-effective when compared with other widely accepted treatments. The use of implantable defibrillators is likely to continue to expand in the future. Ongoing clinical trials will define further prophylactic indications of the implantable defibrillator and clarify its cost-effectiveness ratio in different clinical settings.