Clinical predictors and prognostic significance of electrical storm in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Management of patients with an electrical storm or clustered ventricular arrhythmias: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC-endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society

Electrical storm (ES) is a state of electrical instability, manifesting as recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) over a short period of time (three or more episodes of sustained VA within 24 h, separated by at least 5 min, requiring termination by an intervention). The clinical presentation can vary, but ES is usually a cardiac emergency. Electrical storm mainly affects patients with structural or primary electrical heart disease, often with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Management of ES requires a multi-faceted approach and the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams, but despite advanced treatment and often invasive procedures, it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With an ageing population, longer survival of heart failure patients, and an increasing number of patients with ICD, the incidence of ES is expected to increase. This European Heart Rhythm Association clinical consensus statement focuses on pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and acute and long-term management of patients presenting with ES or clustered VA.

Clinical and Laboratory Predictors of Long-Term Outcomes after Catheter Ablation for a Ventricular Electrical Storm

Background

Ventricular electrical storm (VES) is characterized by the occurrence of multiple episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) over a short period of time. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been reported as an effective treatment in patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT).

Objective

The aim of the present study was to indicate the short-term and long-term predictors of recurrent VA after RFA was performed due to VES.

Methods

A retrospective, single-centre study included patients, who had undergone RFA due to VT between 2012 and 2021. In terms of the short-term (at the end of RFA) effectiveness of RFA, the following scenarios were distinguished: complete success: inability to induce any VT; partial success: absence of clinical VT; failure: inducible clinical VT. In terms of the long-term (12 months) effectiveness of RFA, the following scenarios were distinguished: effective ablation: no recurrence of any VT; partially successful ablation: VT recurrence; ineffective ablation: VES recurrence.

Results

The study included 62 patients. Complete short-term RFA success was obtained in 77.4% of patients. The estimated cumulative VT-free survival and VES-free survival were, respectively, 28% and 33% at the 12-month follow-up. Ischemic cardiomyopathy and complete short-term RFA success were predictors of long-term RFA efficacy. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with VES recurrence. NLR ≥2.95 predicted VT and/or VES recurrence with a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 72.2%.

Conclusion

Ischemic cardiomyopathy and short-term complete success of RFA were predictors of no VES recurrence during the 12-month follow-up, while NLR and GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 were associated with VES relapse.

Etiologies, Mechanisms, Management, and Outcomes of Electrical Storm

Electrical storm (ES) is characterized by three or more discrete sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes occurring within a limited time frame (generally ≤ 24 h) or an incessant ventricular tachyarrhythmia lasting > 12 h. In patients with an implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD), ES is defined as three or more appropriate device therapies, separated from each other by at least 5 min, which occur within a 24-h period. ES may constitute a medical emergency, depending on the number arrhythmic episodes, their duration, the type, and the cycle length of the ventricular arrhythmias, as well as the underlying ventricular function. This narrative review was facilitated by a search of MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other clinically relevant studies. The search was limited to English-language reports published between 1999 and 2023. ES was searched using the terms mechanisms, genetics, channelopathies, management, pharmacological therapy, sedation, neuraxial modulation, cardiac sympathetic denervation, ICDs, and structural heart disease. Google and Google scholar as well as bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed for additional references. This manuscript examines the current strategies available to treat ES and compares pharmacological and invasive treatment strategies to diminish ES recurrence, morbidity, and mortality.

Multidisciplinary Critical Care Management of Electrical Storm: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Electrical storm (ES) reflects life-threatening cardiac electrical instability with 3 or more ventricular arrhythmia episodes within 24 hours. Identification of underlying arrhythmogenic cardiac substrate and reversible triggers is essential, as is interrogation and programming of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, if present. Medical management includes antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-adrenergic blockade, sedation, and hemodynamic support. The initial intensity of these interventions should be matched to the severity of ES using a stepped-care algorithm involving escalating treatments for higher-risk presentations or recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. Many patients with ES are considered for catheter ablation, which may require the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support. Outcomes after ES are poor, including frequent ES recurrences and deaths caused by progressive heart failure and other cardiac causes. A multidisciplinary collaborative approach to the management of ES is crucial, and evaluation for heart transplantation or palliative care is often appropriate, even for patients who survive the initial episode.

Low T3 syndrome is associated with 30-day mortality in adult patients with fulminant myocarditis

Background

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is a critical disease with high early mortality. Low triiodothyronine syndrome (LT3S) was a strong predictor of poor prognosis of critical diseases. This study investigated whether LT3S was associated with 30-day mortality in FM patients.

Methods

Ninety-six FM patients were divided into LT3S (n=39, 40%) and normal free triiodothyronine (FT3) (n=57, 60%) groups based on serum FT3 level. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare 30-day mortality between two groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the value of FT3 level for 30-day mortality prediction.

Results

Compared to normal FT3 group, LT3S group had higher incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, worse hemodynamics, worse cardiac function, more severe kidney impairment, and higher 30-day mortality (48.7% vs. 12.3%, P<0.001). In univariable analysis, LT3S (odds ratio [OR]:6.786, 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.472-18.629, P<0.001) and serum FT3 (OR:0.272, 95%CI:0.139-0.532, P<0.001) were significant strong predictors of 30-day mortality. After adjustment for confounders in multivariable analysis, LT3S (OR:3.409, 95%CI:1.019-11.413, P=0.047) and serum FT3 (OR:0.408, 95%CI:0.199-0.837, P=0.014) remained independent 30-day mortality predictors. The area under the ROC curve of FT3 level was 0.774 (cut-off: 3.58, sensitivity: 88.46%, specificity: 62.86%). In DCA, FT3 level showed good clinical-application value for 30-day mortality prediction.

Conclusion

In FM patients, LT3S could independently predict 30-day mortality. FT3 level was a strong 30-day mortality predictor and a potentially useful risk-stratification biomarker.

Emergency Management of Electrical Storm: A Practical Overview

Electrical storm is a medical emergency characterized by ventricular arrythmia recurrence that can lead to hemodynamic instability. The incidence of this clinical condition is rising, mainly in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients, and its prognosis is often poor. Early acknowledgment, management and treatment have a key role in reducing mortality in the acute phase and improving the quality of life of these patients. In an emergency setting, several measures can be employed. Anti-arrhythmic drugs, based on the underlying disease, are often the first step to control the arrhythmic burden; besides that, new therapeutic strategies have been developed with high efficacy, such as deep sedation, early catheter ablation, neuraxial modulation and mechanical hemodynamic support. The aim of this review is to provide practical indications for the management of electrical storm in acute settings.

Management of patients with electrical storm: an educational review

Electrical storm (ES) is a medical emergency that is defined as ≥ 3 separate ventricular tachycardia (VT) episodes causing ICD therapy within 24 h. Patients with ES have high risk for hospitalization, heart failure (HF) decompensation, in-hospital death. Furthermore, it is associated with significant anxiety and distress for the patients. Frequent triggers of ES are myocardial ischaemia, acute decompensation of HF, metabolic and electrolyte disorders, drug side-effects, increased sympathetic tone. Acute management of ES requires sedation, antiarrhythmic drugs and correction of the precipitating factors; although, in severe refractory cases, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and circulatory support might be necessary. Radiofrequency catheter ablation is superior than antiarrhythmic drugs to suppress the ES and is also frequently required to terminate the ES, as well as to achieve acute and long-term freedom of VT. Optimization of the ICD programming is crucial to reduce the burden of further appropriate and inappropriate shocks. Use of appropriate discrimination criteria and algorithms, ATPs and extending the detection times are important measures to reduce the burden of ES. In patients with end-stage HF, ES can be a sign of failing heart and can be refractory of treatment. In such cases, deactivation of the ICD therapy should be considered and discussed with patients and their care givers.

Predictors and outcome of electrical storm-induced cardiogenic shock

AIM

Limited information is available about the short- and long-term outcomes in electrical storm (ES)-induced cardiogenic shock (CS) and its predictors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of consecutive patients with ES admitted to the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit between 2015 and 2020. The proportion of ES patients who developed CS was adjudicated, and clinical predictors of in-hospital ventricular arrhythmia (VA)-related mortality and 1-year all-cause mortality were investigated. Of the 214 patients with ES, 33.6% developed CS. Left-ventricular ejection fraction, admission lactate, absence of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and admission central venous pressure were independently associated with development of CS (P < 0.03 for all). Based on these variables, a FLIC score was developed (https://riskcalc.org/FLICscore/) to predict ES-induced CS [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.949, with AUC = 0.954 in a validation cohort, both P < 0.001]. Patients who developed CS had a 11.3-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-12.8] increased odds for in-hospital VA-related mortality and 9.4-fold (95% CI 4.0-22.4) increased odds for in-hospital all-cause mortality. A FLIC score above 0.62 was associated with a 6.2- and 5.8-fold increased odds for respectively similar endpoints. Patients with ES-induced CS received more treatment modalities to manage the ES (4.5 ± 1.8 vs. 2.3 ± 1.2, P < 0.001) and had longer length of stay [14 (8-27) vs. 8 (5-13), P < 0.001] than patients without CS. Interestingly, if patients with ES-induced CS survived to discharge, their outcomes were similar to those without CS at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Cardiogenic shock in ES is a frequent and potentially life-threatening complication with high short-term mortality. A novel risk score could identify patient at risk, generating a potential for early risk-based interventions.

Stereotactic Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia in the Setting of Electrical Storm

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been reported as a safe and efficient therapy for treating refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) despite optimal medical treatment and catheter ablation. However, data on the use of SBRT in patients with electrical storm (ES) is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes associated with SBRT in the context of ES.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent SBRT in the context of ES from March 2020 to March 2021 in one tertiary center (CHU Lille). The target volume was delineated according to a predefined workflow. The efficacy was assessed with the following end points: sustained VT recurrence, VT reduced with antitachycardia pacing, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent SBRT to treat refractory VT in the context of ES (mean 67±12.8 age, 59% presenting ischemic heart disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 33.7± 9.7%). Five patients presented with ES related to incessant VT. Among these 5 patients, the time to effectiveness ranged from 1 to 7 weeks after SBRT. In the 12 remaining patients, VT recurrences occurred in 7 patients during the first 6 weeks following SBRT. After a median 12.5 (10.5-17.8) months follow-up, a significant reduction of the VT burden was observed beyond 6 weeks (-91% [95% CI, 78-103]), P<0.0001). The incidence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock and antitachycardia pacing was 36% at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT is associated with a significant reduction of the VT burden in the event of an ES; however, prospective randomized control trials are needed. In patients without incessant VT, recurrences are observed in half of patients during the first 6 weeks. VT tolerance and implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming adjustments should be integrated as part of an action plan defined before SBRT for each patient.

Interaction between electrical storm and left ventricular ejection fraction as predictors of mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A Chinese cohort study

Aims

To determine the interaction of electrical storm (ES) and impaired left ventircular ejection fraction (LVEF) on the mortality risk of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

Methods and results

A total of 554 Chinese ICD recipients from 2010 to 2014 were retrospectively included and the mean follow-up was 58 months. The proportions of dilated cardiomyopathy and the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy were 26.0% (144/554) and 5.6% (31/554), respectively. There were 8 cases with long QT syndrome, 6 with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and 2 with Brugada syndrome. Patients with prior MI accounted for 15.5% (86/554) and pre-implantation syncope accounted for 23.3% (129/554). A total of 199 (35.9%) patients had primary prevention indications for ICD therapy. Both ES and impaired LVEF (<40%) were independent predictors for all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.57–3.68, P < 0.001; HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.30–2.90, P = 0.001, respectively] and cardiovascular mortality (HR 4.63, 95% CI 2.68–7.98, P < 0.001; HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.47–4.44, p = 0.001, respectively). Compared with patients with preserved LVEF (≥40%) and without ES, patients with impaired LVEF and ES had highest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risks (HR 4.17, 95% CI 2.16–8.06, P < 0.001; HR 11.91, 95% CI 5.55–25.56, P < 0.001, respectively). In patients with impaired LVEF, ES increased the all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risks (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.00–3.37, P = 0.034; HR 4.86, 95% CI 2.39–9.86, P < 0.001, respectively). In patients with ES, the deleterious effects of impaired LVEF seemed confined to cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.25–5.14, p = 0.038), and the HR for all-cause mortality was not significant statistically (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.54–2.38, P = 0.735).

Conclusion

Both ES and impaired LVEF are independent predictors of mortality risk in this Chinese cohort of ICD recipients. The interaction of ES and impaired LVEF in patients significantly amplifies the deleterious effects of each other as distinct disease.

Incidence and predictors of mortality after an electrical storm in the ICU

AIMS

For assessing predictors of early mortality following hospitalization for electrical storm (ES), only limited data are available. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of early mortality following hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) for ES in a large retrospective study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective study, we included all patients who were hospitalized for ES from July 2015 to May 2020 in our tertiary centre. A total of 253 patients were included. The median age was 66 [56; 73], and 64% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. A total of 37% of patients presented hemodynamic instability requiring catecholamine at admission. A total of 17% of patients presented an acute reversible cause for ES. The one-year mortality was 34% (95% CI, 30-43%), mostly driven by heart failure (HF). The multivariable Cox's regression model identified age, left ventricular ejection fraction, right ventricle dysfunction, haemoglobin level as independent predictors of one-year mortality. The use of catecholamine at admission was identified as the only variable related to the initial management of ES associated with an increased 30-day mortality risk (HR: 7.95 (95%CI, 3.18-19.85).

CONCLUSION

In patients admitted for ES in ICU, the one-year mortality remains high and mostly driven by HF. The use of catecholamine at admission is associated with a seven-fold risk for mortality within 30 days. In such patients, the potential use of VT ablation can be questioned and a careful action plan regarding invasive HF-related therapy could be considered.

Arrhythmic Recurrence and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With First Episode of Electrical Storm

Electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening condition that may lead to recurrent arrhythmias, need for ventricular mechanical support, and death. The study aimed to assess the burden of arrhythmia recurrence and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted for ES in a large urban hospital. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients admitted with ventricular arrhythmias from January 2018 to June 2021 and identified 61 patients with ES, defined as 3 or more episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) within 24 hours. We reviewed the in-hospital outcomes and compared outcomes between patients who had no recurrence of VT/VF after the first 24 hours (34 [56%]), those with recurrence of 1 or 2 episodes of VT/VF within a 24-hour period (15 [24%]), and patients with 3 or more recurrent VT/VF events consistent with recurrent ES after the first 24 hours (12 [20%]). Patients with recurrent ES had significantly higher in-hospital mortality as compared with those with recurrent VT/VF not meeting criteria for ES or no recurrences of VT/VF (3 [25%] vs 0 [0%] vs 0 [0%]; p = 0.002). Moreover, patients with recurrent ES also had higher rates of the combined end points of ventricular mechanical support and death (7 [58%] vs 1 [6%] vs 1 [3%], p <0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation and death (10 [83%] vs 2 [13%] vs 2 [6%], p <0.001), catheter ablation or death (12 [100%] vs 7 [47%] vs 12 [35%], p <0.001) and heart transplantation and death (3 [25%] vs 2 [13%] vs 0 [0%], p = 0.018). In conclusion, patients admitted with ES have a high risk of in-hospital recurrence, associated with extremely poor outcomes.

Continuous Thoracic Paravertebral Block to Treat Electrical Storm

Continuous ganglion block is increasingly being used to help manage ventricular tachyarrhythmias. We present the cases of 2 patients in whom we used continuous left thoracic paravertebral block to achieve sympathetic denervation and improvement in drug-refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Whether as destination therapy or bridging therapy, we conclude that the block is safe, improves patients' comfort, and is superior in several ways to stellate ganglion block and other single-injection techniques.

Distribution and prognostic impact of coronary artery disease and nonischemic cardiomyopathies in patients with electrical storm

BACKGROUND

The distribution and prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) in ES are still under debate.

METHODS

Consecutive ES patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Three analyses were applied to characterize ES patients: (a) ES patients without CAD (non-CAD), (b) ES patients with CAD (CAD), and (c) diagnostic findings assessed by coronary angiography (CA) at the time of ES (immediate CA). CAD was compared with non-CAD ES patients, and progressive CAD was compared with stable CAD ES patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 2.5 years. Secondary endpoints were the composite endpoint of first recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies, and recurrence of ES (ES-R) at 2.5 years.

RESULTS

Within a total of 87 consecutive ES patients. CAD was present in more than two-thirds (67%). However, only 52% patients underwent immediate CA at the time of ES. Here, 84% had CAD, of which 39% revealed progressive CAD with the need of target vessel revascularization (TVR) or cardiac transplantation (n = 1). At long-term follow-up, neither the presence (or absence) of CAD (41% vs. 34%; log rank P = 0.708) nor of progressive CAD (33% vs. 26%; log rank P = 0.372) was associated with all-cause mortality at 2.5 years, and further secondary endpoints including the composite of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias plus appropriate ICD therapies, or ES-R.

CONCLUSION

In ES patients, CAD was more common than non-CAD-related cardiac diseases, accompanied by an underinvestigated rate of CA despite increasing rates of progressive CAD. CAD had no prognostic impact in ES.

Recent insights into mechanisms and clinical approaches to electrical storm

Electrical storm, characterized by repetitive ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) over a short period, is becoming commoner with widespread use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Electrical storm, sometimes called "arrhythmic storm" or "VT-storm", is usually a medical emergency requiring hospitalization and expert management, and significantly affects short- and long-term outcomes. This syndrome typically occurs in patients with underlying structural heart disease (ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy) or inherited channelopathies. Triggers for electrical storm should be sought but are often unidentifiable. Initial management is dictated by the hemodynamic status, while subsequent management typically involves ICD interrogation and reprogramming to reduce recurrent shocks, identification/management of triggers like electrolyte abnormalities, myocardial ischemia, or decompensated heart failure, and antiarrhythmic-drug therapy or catheter ablation. Sympathetic nervous system activation is central to the initiation and maintenance of arrhythmic storm, so autonomic modulation is a cornerstone of management. Sympathetic inhibition can be achieved with medications (particularly beta-adrenoreceptor blockers), deep sedation, or cardiac sympathetic denervation. More definitive management targets the underlying ventricular arrhythmia substrate to terminate and prevent recurrent arrhythmia. Arrhythmia targeting can be achieved with antiarrhythmic medications, catheter ablation or more novel therapies such as stereotactic radiation therapy that targets the arrhythmic substrate. Mechanistic studies point to adrenergic activation and other direct consequences of ICD-shocks in promoting further arrhythmogenesis and hypocontractility. Here, we review the pathophysiologic mechanisms, clinical features, prognosis, and therapeutic options for electrical storm. We also outline a clinical approach to this challenging and complex condition, along with its mechanistic basis.

Incidence, Predictors and Clinical Impact of Ventricular Electrical Storm in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Single-Center Report with Medium-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the most effective strategy for prevention of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM). However, some patients receive ventricular electrical storm (VES), characterized by multiple episodes of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and prognostic implications of VES in ACM patients with an ICD.

METHODS

A total of 88 patients with definite ACM who received an ICD and followed up continuously were included in this study. VES was defined as the occurrence of ≥3 separate episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias within a 24-hour period.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up time of 4.0 years (range 1.6-6.9), VES occurred in 19/88 patients (21.6%). The interval between the ICD implantation and the first VES ranged from 1 month to 128 months. The median number of ventricular tachyarrhythmia events per VES was 7.5 (range 3-32). Multivariate analysis showed that VES was associated with a high body mass index (BMI) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.45, P=0.048)] and extensive T-wave inversion (TWI) (HR 23.39, 95% CI 1.74-314.58, P=0.017). Kaplan-Meier method showed that patients with VES did not have a worse cardiac mortality compared to those without such an event.

CONCLUSION

There is a relatively high incidence of VES in ACM patients. The presence of high BMI and extensive TWI were strong predictors of VES occurrence in ACM patients with ICD. VES does not independently confer increased cardiac mortality.

Clinical management of electrical storm: a current overview

The number of patients affected by electrical storm has been continuously increasing in emergency departments. Patients are often affected by multiple comorbidities requiring multidisciplinary interventions to achieve a clinical stability. Careful reprogramming of cardiac devices, correction of electrolyte imbalance, knowledge of underlying heart disease and antiarrhythmic drugs in the acute phase play a crucial role. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of pharmacological treatment, latest transcatheter ablation techniques and advanced management of patients with electrical storm.

Electrical storm: Prognosis and management

Electrical storm is present when a cluster of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occurs within a short time frame. The most widely accepted definition is 3 or more episodes of VA within a 24-h period, although prognostic risk begins to rise when 2 or more events occur within 3months. Electrical storm often presents as a medical emergency in the form of recurrent implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) shocks, recurrent syncope in patients with no ICD or low cardiac output symptoms. Management often requires a multimodality approach including ICD management, pharmacologic therapy, catheter ablation and modulations of the autonomic nervous system. In this article, we review the definition, prognosis and management of electrical storm.

Chronic kidney disease impairs prognosis in electrical storm

Background

The study sought to assess the prognostic impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with electrical storm (ES). ES represents a life-threatening heart rhythm disorder. In particular, CKD patients are at risk of suffering from ES. However, data regarding the prognostic impact of CKD on long-term mortality in ES patients is limited.

Methods

All consecutive ES patients with an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Patients with CKD (MDRD-GFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m²) were compared to patients without CKD. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 3 years. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, cardiac rehospitalization, recurrences of electrical storm (ES-R), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 3 years.

Results

A total of 70 consecutive ES patients were included. CKD was present in 43% of ES patients with a median glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 43.3 ml/min/1.73 m². CKD was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 3 years (63% vs. 20%; p = 0.001; HR = 4.293; 95% CI 1.874–9.836; p = 0.001) and MACE (57% vs. 30%; p = 0.025; HR = 3.597; 95% CI 1.679–7.708; p = 0.001). In contrast, first cardiac rehospitalization (43% vs. 45%; log-rank p = 0.889) and ES-R (30% vs. 20%; log-rank p = 0.334) were not affected by CKD. Even after multivariable adjustment, CKD was still associated with increased long-term mortality (HR = 2.397; 95% CI 1.012–5.697; p = 0.047), as well as with the secondary endpoint MACE (HR = 2.520; 95% CI 1.109–5.727; p = 0.027).

Conclusions

In patients with ES, the presence of CKD was associated with increased long-term mortality and MACE.

Effects of Apparent Temperature on the Incidence of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: Differential Association Between Patients With and Without Electrical Storm

Background: Electrical storm (ES) has profound psychological effects and is associated with a higher mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD). Assessing the incidence and features of ES, is vital. Previous studies have shown winter peaks for ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) in ICD patients. However, the effects of heat with a high relative humidity remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to assess the nonlinear and lagged effects of apparent temperature [or heat index (HI)] on VTA among patients with and without ES after ICD implantation.

Methods: Of 626 consecutive patients who had ICDs implanted from January 2004 to June 2017 at our hospital, 172 who experienced sustained VTAs in ICD recording were analyzed, and their clinical records were abstracted to assess the association between VTA incidence and HI by time-stratified case-crossover analysis. Cubic splines were used for the nonlinear effect of HI, with adjustment for air pollutant concentrations.

Results: A significant seasonal effect for ES patients was noted. Apparent temperature, but not ambient temperature, was associated with VTA occurrences. The low and high HI thresholds for VTA incidence were <15° and >30°C, respectively, with a percentage change in odds ratios of 1.06 and 0.37, respectively, per 1°C. Lagged effects could only be demonstrated in ES patients, which lasted longer for low HI (in the next 4 days) than high HI (in the next 1 day).

Conclusion: VTA occurrence in ICD patients was strongly associated with low HI and moderately associated with high HI. Lagged effects of HI on VTA were noted in patients with ES. Furthermore, patients with ES were more vulnerable to heat stress than those without ES. Patients with ICD implantation, particularly in those with ES, should avoid exposure to low and high HI to reduce the risk of VTAs, improve quality of life and possibly reduce mortality.

Ventricular tachycardia storm management in a COVID-19 patient: a case report

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with myocardial involvement. Among cardiovascular manifestations, cardiac arrhythmias seem to be fairly common, although no specifics are reported in the literature. An increased risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and electrical storm (ES) has to be considered.

CASE SUMMARY

We describe a 68-year-old patient with a previous history of coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular systolic disfunction, who presented to our emergency department describing cough, dizziness, fever, and shortness of breath. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, confirmed after three nasopharyngeal swabs. Ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm with multiple implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks was the presenting manifestation of cardiac involvement during the COVID-19 clinical course. A substrate-based VT catheter ablation procedure was successfully accomplished using a remote navigation system. The patient recovered from COVID-19 and did not experience further ICD interventions.

DISCUSSION

To date, COVID-19 pneumonia associated with a VT storm as the main manifestation of cardiac involvement has never been reported. This case highlights the role of COVID-19 in precipitating ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy who were previously stable.

Management of ventricular electrical storm: a contemporary appraisal

Ventricular electrical storm (VES) is a clinical scenario characterized by the clustering of multiple episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) over a short duration. Patients with VES are prone to psychological disorders, heart failure decompensation, and increased mortality. Studies have shown that 10–28% of the patients with secondary prevention ICDs can sustain VES. The triad of a susceptible electrophysiologic substrate, triggers, and autonomic dysregulation govern the pathogenesis of VES. The rate of VA, underlying ventricular function, and the presence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) determine the clinical presentation. A multi-faceted approach is often required for management consisting of acute hemodynamic stabilization, ICD reprogramming when appropriate, antiarrhythmic drug therapy, and sedation. Some patients may be eligible for catheter ablation, and autonomic modulation with thoracic epidural anesthesia, stellate ganglion block, or cardiac sympathetic denervation. Hemodynamically unstable patients may benefit from the use of left ventricular assist devices, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Special scenarios such as idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, Brugada syndrome, Long and short QT syndrome, early repolarization syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and cardiac sarcoidosis have been described as well. VES is a cardiac emergency that requires swift intervention. It is associated with poor short and long-term outcomes. A structured team-based management approach is paramount for the safe and effective treatment of this sick cohort.

In-hospital and intermediate term outcome of ventricular tachycardia storm

Real world data on management and outcomes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm are scarce. This prospective study evaluates the clinical profile, in-hospital outcome and intermediate outcome in patients presenting with VT Storm. A majority (36/50, 72%) were male and the age was 54 ± 15 years. Scar VT was the most common underlying substrate for VT stormand pleomorphic VT was the predominant morphology. Twenty-one (42%) patients underwent cardiac sympathetic denervation, 6 (12%) patients underwent radiofrequency ablation (RFA), 3 (6%) patients amongst these underwent both the precedures in addition to conventional medical management. The overall mortality was 18% and VT free survival was 54%at 6 months follow up. VT recurrence was more common with severe LV dysfunction.

Electrical Storm in Chagas Cardiomyopathy: Clinical Predictors, Outcome, and Arrhythmic Characteristics in a Prospective Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study of patients with Chagas heart disease (CHD) with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death sought to compare the characteristics of those with or without electrical storm (ES) during long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND

ES is a common problem in patients with CHD harboring an ICD, but data on clinical predictors and outcomes are limited.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively evaluated 110 patients with CHD with a mean follow-up of 1,949 ± 1,271 days. Demographic, clinical, arrhythmia characteristics, ICD treatment, and death data were collected. Descriptive statistics included mean ± SD and Fisher exact tests used for comparisons. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The ES group (n = 57; 43 men; age 62 ± 10 years) and the non-ES group (n = 53; 43 men; age 57 ± 14 years) had similar baseline demographic and clinical parameters, but left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the ES group (44 ± 14% vs. 37 ± 14%; p = 0.02) and QRS duration was shorter (109 ± 35 ms vs. 134 ± 36 ms; p = 0.0027). Mortality rates were comparable in the 2 groups (odds ratio: 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.85; p = 0.44). The ES group presented 116 ES (2.03 ±1.47, 1 to 6). A total of 2,953 (61%) arrhythmic events required ICD therapy. No deaths occurred directly caused by ES, but clinical triggers were reported in 20 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ES is frequent in CHD but in itself does not carry a worse prognosis in this study population and was not associated with a more depressed left ventricular systolic function or a longer QRS.

Electrical storm: A focused review for the emergency physician

BACKGROUND

Electrical storm is a dangerous condition presenting to the Emergency Department that requires rapid diagnosis and management.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a review of the diagnosis and management of electrical storm for the emergency clinician.

DISCUSSION

Electrical storm is defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or shocks from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator within 24 h. Patients may present with a wide array of symptoms. Initial evaluation should include an electrocardiogram with a rhythm strip and continuous cardiac monitoring, a medication history, assessment of hemodynamic stability, and identification of potential triggers. Management includes an antiarrhythmic and a beta blocker. Refractory patients may benefit from double-sequential defibrillation or more invasive procedures such as intra-aortic balloon pumps, catheter ablation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill patients. These patients will typically require admission to an intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

Electrical storm is a condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the evaluation and management of these patients.

Mortality Risk Increases With Clustered Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the adverse prognosis associated with ventricular arrhythmia clusters that falls outside the current electrical storm definition.

BACKGROUND

Electrical storm is most frequently defined as a cluster of ≥3 episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in a 24-h period. This definition has been associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, but the effect of lesser and greater clustering of arrhythmias has not been described.

METHODS

Among all patients in the Resynchronization in Ambulatory Heart Failure trial, 14,515 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-detected events with data available were rigorously adjudicated in blinded fashion. Arrhythmia incidence was examined for clustering, defined as 2 or more VA events occurring within 3 months. The prognostic importance of clustering was analyzed by varying the cluster length and number of events used to define a cluster. Mortality rates of groups with clustered arrhythmias were compared to patients with no arrhythmia or with unclustered arrhythmia.

RESULTS

The trial included 1,764 patients, among whom 465 patients had two or more VA episodes within 3 months, whereas 406 had unclustered arrhythmias. Compared to patients with no arrhythmia, patients experiencing unclustered VA had increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 1.93; p = 0.011), whereas the risk was even higher in patients with clustered arrhythmia (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 2.13 to 3.36; p < 0.0001). Mortality risk increased with higher VA burden (number of VAs in a cluster) and shorter cluster length. This was observed in all groups tested, including the cluster with the least VA burden in the longest cluster length tested (2 VA episodes occurring within 3 months) (mortality HR: 2.85; 95% CI: 1.95 to 4.17; p < 0.0001). Although clustered arrhythmias terminated with antitachycardia pacing were associated with increased mortality, clusters terminated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks were associated with still higher mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant adverse prognostic association of clustered VAs is observable with even 2 VA events within 3 months and increases with higher cluster density.

Predicting Electrical Storm Using Episodes' Parameters from ICD Recorded Data

Electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening heart condition for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). ICD patients experienced episodes are at higher risk for ES. However, predicting ES using previous episodes' parameters recorded by ICDs have never been developed. This study aims to predict ES using machine learning models based on ICD remote monitoring-summaries during episodes in the anonymized large number of patients. Episode ICD-summaries from 16,022 patients were used to construct and evaluate two models, logistic regression and random forest, for predicting the short-term risk of ES. Episode parameters in this study included the total number of sustained episodes, shocks delivered and the cycle length parameters. The models evaluated on the data sections not used for model development. Random forest performed significantly better than logistic regression (P <; 0.01), achieving a test accuracy of 0.99 and an Area Under an ROC Curve (AUC) of 0.93 (vs. an accuracy of 0.98 and an AUC of 0.90). The total number of previous sustained episodes was the most relevant variables in the both models.

Prognostic Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Electrical Storm

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with electrical storm (ES) is rare.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the prognostic impact of AF in patients with ES on mortality, rehospitalization, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and recurrence of ES (ES-R).

METHODS

All consecutive implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients presenting with ES were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Patients with AF were compared to non-AF patients. The primary prognostic endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, rehospitalization rates, MACE and ES-R.

RESULTS

A total of 87 ES patients with ICD were included and followed up to 2.5 years; 43% suffered from AF. The presence of AF was associated with increased all-cause mortality (47 vs. 29%, log-rank p = 0.052; hazard ratio [HR] 1.969, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.981-3.952, p = 0.057), which was no longer present after multivariable adjustment for age, diabetes and dilated cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, AF was associated with increased rates of overall rehospitalization (61 vs. 31%, log-rank p = 0.013; HR 2.381, 95% CI 1.247-4.547, p = 0.009), especially due to AF (14 vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and acute heart failure (AHF) (28 vs. 10%, p = 0.018; HR 3.754, 95% CI 1.277-11.038, p = 0.016). Notably, AF was not associated with differences in MACE (55 vs. 37%, log rank p = 0.339) and ES-R (28 vs. 25%, log rank p = 0.704).

CONCLUSION

In ES patients, presence of AF was univariably associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality at 2.5 years. Furthermore, AF was multivariably associated with overall rehospitalization, especially due to AF and AHF.

A Low Critical Event Rate Despite a High Abnormal Event Rate in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electric Devices Followed Up by Remote Monitoring

Objective Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electric devices (CIEDs) has been advocated as a healthcare standard. However, expert consensus statements suggest that all patients require annual face-to-face follow-up consultations at outpatient clinics even if RM reveals no episodes. The objective of this study was to determine the critical event rate after CIED implantation through RM. Methods This multicenter, retrospective, cohort study evaluated patients with pacemakers (PMs), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and analyzed whether or not the data drawn from RM included abnormal or critical events. Patients A total of 1,849 CIED patients in 12 hospitals who were followed up by the RM center in Okayama University Hospital were included in this study. Results During the mean follow-up period of 774.9 days, 16,560 transmissions were analyzed, of which 11,040 (66.7%) were abnormal events and only 676 (4.1%) were critical events. The critical event rate in the PM group was significantly lower than that in the ICD or CRT-D groups (0.9% vs. 5.0% or 5.9%, p<0.001). A multivariate analysis revealed that ICD, CRT-D, and a low ejection fraction were independently associated with critical events. In patients with ICD, the independent risk factors for a critical event were old age, low ejection fraction, Brugada syndrome, dilated phase hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Conclusion Although abnormal events were observed in two-thirds of the transmitted RM data, the critical event rate was <1% in patients with a PM, which was lower in comparison to the rates in patients with ICDs or CRT-Ds. A low ejection fraction was an independent predictor of critical events.

Update in Electrical Storm Therapy

BACKGROUND

Electrical storm (ES) is a major life-threatening event, which announces a possible negative outcome and poor prognosis and poses challenging questions concerning etiology and management.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through MEDLINE and EMBASE (past 30 years until the end of September 2018) using the following search terms: ES, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, ablation, and implantable defibrillator. Clinicaltrials.gov was also consulted for studies that are ongoing or completed. Additional articles were identified through bibliographical citations.

AREA OF UNCERTAINTY

There is no homogeneous attitude, and therapeutic strategies vary widely.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The aim of this review is to define the concept of ES, to review the incidence and prognostic implications, and to describe the most common strategies of therapeutic advances and trends. The management strategy should be decided after an accurate risk stratification is done in initial evaluation according to hemodynamic tolerability and presence of triggers and comorbidities. General care should be provided in an intensive cardiovascular care unit. The cornerstone of acute medical therapy used in ES is mainly represented by amiodarone and beta-blockers. Deep sedation and mechanical ventilation should provide comfort for treatment administration. First-choice drugs are benzodiazepines and short-acting analgesics. General care may also include thoracic epidural anesthesia to modulate neuroaxial efferents to the heart and to decrease sympathetic hyperactivity. We include a special focus on ablation as a reliable tool to target the mechanism of arrhythmia, finally building an up-to-date standardization.

CONCLUSIONS

ES management needs a complex assessment and interpretation of a critical situation in a life-threatening condition. Optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-reprogramming, antiarrhythmic drug therapy and sedation are in first-line approach. Catheter ablation is the elective therapy and plays a central key role in the treatment of ES if possible in combination with hemodynamic support.

Prognostic impact of recurrences in patients with electrical storm

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to assess the prognostic impact of recurrences of electrical storm (ES-R) on mortality, rehospitalization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

BACKGROUND

Data on the prognostic impact of ES-R is rare.

METHODS

All consecutive ES patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Patients with ES-R were compared to patients without ES-R. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, rehospitalization and MACE.

RESULTS

A total of 87 consecutive ES patients with an ICD were included, of which 26% presented with ES-R at 2.5 years of follow-up. ES-R patients revealed lower LVEF compared to non-ES-R patients (91% vs. 61%; p = .081). There was a numerically higher rate of the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality at 2.5 years (50% vs. 32%; log-rank p = .137). Furthermore, ES-R was associated with increasing rates of rehospitalization (64% vs. 37%; p = .031; HR 1.985; 95% CI 1.025-3.845; log-rank p = .042), especially of acute heart failure (32% vs. 12%; p = .001; HR 3.262; 95% CI 1.180-9.023; log rank p = .023). MACE were higher in ES-R patients (55% vs. 35%; p = .113; log rank p = .141). ES patients with LVEF ≤35% were 12.4 times more likely to develop ES-R (HR 12.417; 95% CI 1.329-115.997; p = .027).

CONCLUSION

At long-term follow-up of 2.5 years, ES-R was associated with numerically higher rates of long-term all-cause mortality and significantly higher rates of rehospitalization due to acute heart failure. LVEF ≤35% was associated with increased risk of ES-R. Condensed Abstract This study examined retrospectively the impact of recurrences of electrical storm (ES-R) on survival in 87 patients. ES-R was associated with numerically higher long-term all-cause mortality, whereas significantly higher rates of rehospitalization, respectively of acute heart failure were observed. Highlights ES-R is associated with numerically higher rates of all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up. ES-R is associated with significantly higher rates of rehospitalization and numerically higher rates of MACE at long-term follow-up, mainly due to acute heart failure. Patients with LVEF ≤35% were 12.4 times more likely to develop ES-R.

Prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with electrical storm

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to assess retrospectively the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with electrical storm (ES).

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the prognostic impact of impaired LVEF in ES patients is rare.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with ES from 2002 to 2016 were included retrospectively. Patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were compared to patients with LVEF > 35%. The primary prognostic endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality, and secondary endpoints were rates of in-hospital mortality, rehospitalization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and ES recurrences (ES-R) at long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients with ES were included at 2.5 years of follow-up. 69% of patients suffered from LVEF ≤ 35%. ES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality (53% versus 8%, log-rank p = 0.0001; HR 8.524; 95% CI 2.030-35.793, p = 0.003), as well as the secondary endpoints of MACE (53% versus 20%; log rank p = 0.011; HR 3.213, 95% CI 1.241-8.316, p = 0.016) and ES-R (35% versus 8%; log rank p = 0.019; HR 4.821, 95% CI 1.122-20.706, p = 0.034). Furthermore, ES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% showed higher rates of rehospitalization due to acute heart failure (24% versus 8%, statistical trend p = 0.096). Notably, ES patients with LVEF > 35% were associated with increased rates of rehospitalization due to ventricular tachycardia (36% versus 18%, statistical trend p = 0.083).

CONCLUSIONS

ES patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality, MACE, ES-R and heart failure-related rehospitalization at long-term follow-up. This study evaluated retrospectively the prognostic impact of LVEF in patients with ES. LVEF ≤ 35% was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (53% versus 8%; HR 8.524; 95% CI 2.030-35.793, p = 0.003), MACE (53% versus 20%; HR 3.213, 95% CI 1.241-8.316, p = 0.016), and ES recurrences (35% versus 8%; HR 4.821, 95% CI 1.122-20.706, p = 0.034), while trends were observed for higher rates of heart-failure related rehospitalization (24% versus 8%, p = 0.096) and MACE (49% versus 28%; p = 0.081).

Predicting electrical storms by remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients using machine learning

Aims

Electrical storm (ES) is a serious arrhythmic syndrome that is characterized by recurrent episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. Electrical storm is associated with increased mortality and morbidity despite the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Predicting ES could be essential; however, models for predicting this event have never been developed. The goal of this study was to construct and validate machine learning models to predict ES based on daily ICD remote monitoring summaries.

Methods and results

Daily ICD summaries from 19 935 patients were used to construct and evaluate two models [logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF)] for predicting the short-term risk of ES. The models were evaluated on the parts of the data not used for model development. Random forest performed significantly better than LR (P < 0.01), achieving a test accuracy of 0.96 and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (vs. an accuracy of 0.96 and an AUC of 0.75). The percentage of ventricular pacing and the daytime activity were the most relevant variables in the RF model.

Conclusion

The use of large-scale machine learning showed that daily summaries of ICD measurements in the absence of clinical information can predict the short-term risk of ES.

Editor's Choice-The treatment of electrical storm: an educational review

Electrical storm is characterised by a state of severe electrical instability that occurs in a rare combination of circumstances, and may lead to multiple implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks and haemodynamic instability, and possible death. The main goal of treating electrical storm is to eliminate the trigger and modify the substrate of the arrhythmia. The aim of this educational review is to provide information for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and therefore help to improve the treatment of electrical storm patients.

Risk factors and prognostic role of an electrical storm in patients after myocardial infarction with an implanted ICD for secondary prevention

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to determine the risk factors for electrical storm (ES) and to assess the impact of ES on the long-term prognosis in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 416 patients with coronary artery disease after MI who had an implanted ICD for secondary prevention of SCD. Fifty (12%) patients had one or more incidents of an electrical storm - the ES (+) group. We matched the reference group of 47 patients from 366 ES (-) patients.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,408 episodes of ventricular arrhythmias: 3,148 ventricular tachyarrhythmic episodes in the ES (+) group (including 187 episodes of ES) and 260 in the ES (-) group. Multivariate logistic regression showed that inferior wall MI (RR = 3.98, 95% CI: 1.52-10.41) and the absence of coronary revascularization (RR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.18-7.21) were independent predictors of ES (p = 0.0014). During 6-year observation of 97 patients, there were 39 (40%) deaths: 25 (50%) subjects in the ES (+) group and 14 (30%) in the ES (-) group (p = 0.036). Independent predictors of death were: the occurrence of ES (HR = 1.93), older age (HR = 1.06), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (HR = 0.95) (for all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical storm in patients after MI with ICD for secondary prevention is a relatively common phenomenon and has a negative prognostic significance. Myocardial infarction of the inferior wall and the absence of coronary revascularization are predisposing factors for the occurrence of an ES.

Low Prevalence of Inappropriate Shocks in Patients With Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes With the Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator Single Center Experience and Long-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Up to 40% of patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) experience lead-associated complications and may suffer from high complication rates when lead extraction is indicated. Subcutaneous ICD may represent a feasible alternative; however, the efficacy of the subcutaneous ICD in the detection and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with hereditary arrhythmia syndromes has not been fully evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with primary hereditary arrhythmia syndromes who fulfilled indication for defibrillator placement were eligible for enrollment. Between 2010 and 2016, 62 consecutive patients with primary hereditary arrhythmia syndromes, without indication for antibradycardia therapy, were enrolled in the study. Mean follow-up was 31.0±14.2 months. The study cohort comprised of 24 patients with Brugada syndrome, 17 with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, 6 with long-QT syndrome, 1 with short-QT syndrome, 3 with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, 8 with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and 3 with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Thirty-nine patients were implanted for secondary prevention. Twenty-two patients had a previous transvenous ICD implanted, but required revision because of infection or lead defects. A total of 20 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring shock intervention occurred in 10 patients during follow-up. All episodes were terminated within the first ICD shock delivery with 80 J. Two patients had inappropriate therapies caused by oversensing following an uneventful implantation. No pocket-site infections and no premature revisions have occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the use of the subcutaneous ICD for both secondary and primary prevention of sudden cardiac death as a reliable alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD.

Electrical Storm in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators: A Practical Overview

Electrical storm (ES) is an increasingly common medical emergency characterized by clustered episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) that lead to repeated appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. A diagnosis of ES can be made with the occurrence of three or more sustained episodes of VAs, or of three or more appropriate ICD therapies within 24 hours in patients with implanted devices. ES is associated with poor outcomes in patients with structural heart disease, particularly those with severe left ventricular dysfunction. In large clinical trials involving patients with ICDs for primary and secondary prevention, ES appears to be a predictor of cardiac death, with notably higher rates of mortality soon after the event. ES management is challenging and requires special medical attention with accurate patient risk stratification and a multidisciplinary approach that includes the use of pharmacologic therapies such as antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and interventional approaches like catheter ablation, surgical ablation, or sympathetic neuromodulation. Initial management involves determining and addressing the underlying ischemia, any electrolyte imbalances, and/or other causative factors. Hemodynamic support needs to be considered in high-risk patients with unstable VAs or those with severe comorbidities such as low left ventricular ejection fraction, advanced New York Heart Association class, and/or chronic pulmonary disease. Following the acute phase of ES, treatment should shift towards maximizing therapeutic efforts to address heart failure, performing revascularization, and preventing subsequent VAs. In the present manuscript, we offer an overview of the most relevant clinical aspects of ES with regard to novel therapeutic strategies.

Outcomes of ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with structural heart disease: The impact of electrical storm

Aims

To investigate predictors of long-term outcomes after catheter ablation (CA) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) and the impact of electrical storm (ES) prior to index ablation procedures.

Methods

We studied consecutive patients with structural heart disease and VT (n = 328; age: 63±12 years; 88% males; 72% ischaemic cardiomyopathy; LVEF: 32±12%) who had undergone CA. According to presenting arrhythmia at baseline, they were divided into ES (n = 93, 28%) and non-ES groups. Clinical predictors of all-cause mortality were investigated and a clinically useful risk score (SCORE) was constructed.

Results

During a median follow-up of 927 days (IQR: 564–1626), 67% vs. 60% of patients (p = 0.05) experienced VT recurrence in the ES vs. the non-ES group, respectively; and 41% vs. 32% patients died (p = 0.02), respectively. Five factors were independently associated with mortality: age >70 years (hazard ratio (HR): 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–2.4, p = 0.01), NYHA class ≥3 (HR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2–2.9, p = 0.005), a serum creatinine level >1.3 mg/dL (HR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.3, p = 0.02), LVEF ≤25% (HR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.6–3.5, p = 0.00004), and amiodarone therapy (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0–2.2, p = 0.03). A risk SCORE ranging from 0–4 (1 point for either high-risk age, NYHA, creatinine, or LVEF) correlated with mortality. ES during index ablation independently predicted mortality only in patients with a SCORE ≤1.

Conclusions

Advanced LV dysfunction, older age, higher NYHA class, renal dysfunction, and amiodarone therapy, but not ES, were predictors of poor outcomes after CA for VT in the total population. However, ES did predict mortality in a low-risk sub-group of patients.

The role of catheter ablation in the management of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators presenting with electrical storm

OBJECTIVE

Electrical storm (ES) is not uncommon among patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in situ. Catheter ablation (CA) may suppress the arrhythmia in the acute setting and prevent ES recurrence.

METHODS

Nineteen consecutive patients with an ICD in situ presenting with ES underwent electrophysiologic studies followed by CA. CA outcome was classified as a complete success if both clinical and non-clinical tachycardia were successfully ablated, partial success if ≥1 non-clinical tachycardia episodes were still inducible post-CA, and failure if clinical tachycardia could not be abolished. Patients were followed for a median period (IQR) of 5.6 (1.8-13.7) months. The primary endpoint was event-free survival from ES recurrence. The secondary endpoint was event-free survival from a composite of ES and/or sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurrence.

RESULTS

Clinical arrhythmia was successfully ablated in 14 out of 19 (73.7%) cases after a single CA procedure. A completely successful CA outcome was associated with significantly increased ES-free survival compared with a partially successful or failed procedure (Log rank P=0.039). Nevertheless, patients with acute suppression of all tachycardia episodes (n=11), relative to those with a partially successful or a failed CA procedure (n=8), did not differ in incidence of the composite endpoint of sustained VT or ES (Log rank P=0.278).

CONCLUSION

A single CA procedure can acutely suppress clinical arrhythmia in three-quarters of cases. A completely successful CA outcome can prolong ES-free survival; however, sporadic ICD therapies cannot be abrogated.

Beyond the Storm: Comparison of Clinical Factors, Arrhythmogenic Substrate, and Catheter Ablation Outcomes in Structural Heart Disease Patients With versus Those Without a History of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm

AIMS

Catheter ablation can be lifesaving in ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm, but the underlying substrate in patients with storm is not well characterized. We sought to compare the clinical factors, substrate, and outcomes differences in patients with sustained monomorphic VT who present for catheter ablation with VT storm versus those with a nonstorm presentation.

METHODS

Consecutive ischemic (ICM; n = 554) or nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients (NICM; n = 369) with a storm versus nonstorm presentation were studied (ICM storm 186; NICM storm 101).

RESULTS

In ICM, storm compared with nonstorm patients had significantly lower left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), greater number of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) failures, slower VTs, greater number of scarred LV segments, higher incidence of anterior, septal, and apical endocardial LV scar (all P < 0.05). However, outcomes in follow-up were similar (12-month ventricular arrhythmia [VA]-free survival: 51% vs. 52%, P = 0.6; survival free of death/transplant 75% vs. 87%, P = 0.7). In addition to the above differences, NICM storm patients were also older; however, the extent and distribution of scar was similar except for a higher incidence of lateral endocardial scar in storm patients (P = 0.05). VA-free survival (36% vs. 47%, P = 0.004) and survival free of death/transplant, however, were worse in NICM storm than nonstorm patients (72% vs. 88%, P = 0.001). NICM storm patients had worse VA-free survival than ICM storm patients.

CONCLUSION

There are differences in clinical factors and scar patterns in patients undergoing VT ablation who present with VT storm versus those with a nonstorm presentation. Clinical outcomes are worse in NICM storm patients.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and electrical storm: Results of the OBSERVational registry On long-term outcome of ICD patients (OBSERVO-ICD)

BACKGROUND

Electrical storm (ES) is defined as 3 or more episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) within 24 hours and is associated with increased cardiac and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test whether aggressive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) programming can be associated with ES.

METHODS

The OBSERVational registry On long-term outcome of ICD patients (OBSERVO-ICD) is a multicenter, retrospective registry enrolling all consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation from 2010 to 2012 in 5 Italian high-volume arrhythmia centers. Clinical history and risk factors were collected for all patients, as were ICD therapy-related variables such as detection zones and delays. The total number of arrhythmic episodes and therapies delivered by the ICD were collected through out-of-hospital visits and remote monitoring.

RESULTS

The registry enrolled 1319 consecutive patients, of whom 62 (4.7%) experienced at least 1 ES during follow-up (median 39 months). Patients who experienced ES had a significantly lower VF detection zone (P = .002), more frequently had antitachycardia pacing therapies programmed off during capacitor charge (P = .001), and less frequently had an ICD set with delayed therapies for VT zones (P = .042) and VF zone (P = .036). Patients who experienced ES had a significantly higher incidence of death and heart failure-related death compared to patients with no ventricular arrhythmias and patients with unclustered VTs/VFs (P = .025 and P <.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Patients with ES had a more aggressive ICD programming setup, including lower VF detection rates, shorter detection times, and no antitachycardia pacing therapies during capacitor charge. This kind of ICD programming potentially could increase the likelihood of ES and the related risk of death.

ED evaluation and management of implantable cardiac defibrillator electrical shocks

Patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators not infrequently present to the emergency department after experiencing an implantable cardiac defibrillator shock. This review considers the management of such patients in the emergency department, including appropriate, inappropriate, and phantom shocks as well as electrical storm.