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

INTRODUCTION

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

[Risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in dilated cardiomyopathy. Programmed ventricular stimulation]

There is a strong correlation between clinical presentation and results of the electrophysiological study (EPS) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Patients with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or syncope often have inducible VT in contrast to patients who have no history of arrhythmias or syncope. Therefore, the EPS is rather not useful for risk stratification but for planning of an adjuvant antiarrhythmic or ablation therapy. This is also true for patients with frequent ventricular extrasystole or nonsustained VT in whom VT may aggravate heart failure. An EP study may still be useful to differentiate between syncope of bradycardic or tachycardic origin.

Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy population: reappraisal of the role of programmed ventricular stimulation

BACKGROUND

We considered the role of programmed ventricular stimulation in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in an idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred fifty-eight patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy underwent programmed ventricular stimulation. Ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation was triggered in 44 patients (group I, 27.8%) versus 114 patients (group II), where ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation was not induced. Sixty-nine patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation: 41/44 in group I and 28/114 in group II. The major end points of the study were overall mortality and appropriate ICD activation. Overall mortality during the 46.9 months of mean follow-up was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (n=119) demonstrated a higher overall mortality rate compared with the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >35% (n=39; 16.8% versus 10.3%, log-rank P=0.025). Advanced New York Heart Association class (III and IV versus I and II) was the single independent and strongest prognostic factor of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 11.909; P<0.001; confidence interval, 3.106-45.65), as well as of cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 14.787; P=0.001; confidence interval, 2.958-73.922). Among ICD recipients, ICD activation rate was significantly higher in group I compared with group II (30 of 41 patients-73.2% versus 5 of 28 patients-17.9%; log-rank P=0.001), either in the form of antitachycardia pacing (68.3% versus 17.9%; log-rank P=0.001) or in the shock delivery form (51.2% versus 17.9%; log-rank P=0.05). Induction of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation during programmed ventricular stimulation in contrast to left ventricular ejection fraction was the single independent prognostic factor for future ICD activation (hazard ratio, 4.195; P=0.007; confidence interval, 1.467-11.994).

CONCLUSIONS

Inducibility of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation was associated with an increased likelihood of subsequent ICD activation and sudden cardiac death surrogate.

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) has been recorded in a wide range of conditions, from apparently healthy individuals to patients with significant heart disease. In the absence of heart disease, the prognostic significance of NSVT is debatable. When detected during exercise, and especially at recovery, NSVT indicates increased cardiovascular mortality within the next decades. In trained athletes, NSVT is considered benign when suppressed by exercise. In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, NSVT occurring beyond 48 h after admission indicates an increased risk of cardiac and sudden death, especially when associated with myocardial ischemia. In acute myocardial infarction, in-hospital NSVT has an adverse prognostic significance when detected beyond the first 13 to 24 h. In patients with prior myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion and beta-blockers, NSVT is not an independent predictor of long-term mortality when other covariates such as left ventricular ejection fraction are taken into account. In patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and most probably genetic channelopathies, NSVT carries prognostic significance, whereas its independent prognostic ability in ischemic heart failure and dilated cardiomyopathy has not been established. The management of patients with NSVT is aimed at treating the underlying heart disease.

Sudden cardiac death risk stratification in patients with heart failure

The multiplicity of mechanisms contributing to arrhythmogenesis in patients with heart failure carries obvious implications for risk stratification. If patients having the propensity to develop arrhythmias by these different mechanisms are to be identified, tests must be devised that reveal the substrates or other factors that relate to each mechanism. In the absence of this, efforts to risk stratify patients are likely to be neither cost-effective nor accurate. This article reviews the current knowledge base of risk stratification for sudden death in patients with heart failure, while acknowledging several limitations in the studies examined.

[Limits and scopes of invasive risk stratification. Do we still need programmed ventricular stimulation?]

Patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ICM), dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM), or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVCM) carry a high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are most often the cause of SCD, which can be treated with internal cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, a great proportion of these high-risk patients will never experience potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias, and as such will never be in need of these devices. Given the risks, inconvenience, and costs of ICDs, markers that adequately stratify patients according to their risk of SCD are needed. Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) has long been used to identify the patients' risk of SCD. However, the prognostic ability of PVS is only modest and the negative predictive value is poor. As far as patients with ICM are concerned, recent data from the MUSTT and MADIT II trials demonstrate that in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 40%, inducibility by PVS can help to identify patients who are at particularly increased risk of SCD. The value of PVS in patients with DCM, HCM, and ARVCM for risk stratification of SCD is less clear and the available data even more limited. In these patients, the inducibility of ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not clearly correlate with VT/VF (ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation) risk, and more importantly, noninducibility does not portend good prognosis. The current German guidelines appreciate these uncertainties of PVS for risk stratification with class IIb recommendations in certain patients with ICM, HCM or ARVCM. In the future, combining the results of invasive PVS with other noninvasive parameters may improve its prognostic value. Furthermore, expanding the role of PVS to guiding therapeutic ablation of ventricular arrhythmias may influence patient's future risk of SCD.