A randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for suppression of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: The VANISH2 trial

BACKGROUND

Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with prior myocardial infarction is associated with adverse quality of life and clinical outcomes, despite the presence of implanted defibrillators (ICDs). Suppression of recurrent VT can be accomplished with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or catheter ablation. The Ventricular Tachycardia Antiarrhythmics or Ablation In Structural Heart Disease 2 (VANISH2) trial is designed to determine whether ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line therapy for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT.

METHODS

The VANISH2 trial enrolls patients with prior myocardial infarction and VT (with one of: ≥1 ICD shock; ≥3 episodes treated with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and symptoms; ≥5 episodes treated with ATP regardless of symptoms; ≥3 episodes within 24 hours; or sustained VT treated with electrical cardioversion or pharmacologic conversion). Enrolled patients are classified as either sotalol-eligible, or amiodarone-eligible, and then are randomized to either catheter ablation or to that antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with randomization stratified by drug-eligibility group. Drug therapy, catheter ablation procedures and ICD programming are standardized. All patients will be followed until two years after randomization. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality at any time, appropriate ICD shock after 14 days, VT storm after 14 days, and treated sustained VT below detection of the ICD after 14 days. The outcomes will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle using survival analysis techniques RESULTS: The results of the VANISH2 trial are intended to provide data to support clinical decisions on how to suppress VT for patients with prior myocardial infarction.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration NCT02830360.

Incidence and Predictors of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapies After Generator Replacement-A Pooled Analysis of 31,640 Patients' Data

Among primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients, 75% do not experience any appropriate ICD therapies during their lifetime, and nearly 25% have improvements in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during the lifespan of their first generator. The practice guidelines concerning this subgroup's clinical need for generator replacement (GR) remain unclear. We conducted a proportional meta-analysis to determine the incidence and predictors of ICD therapies after GR and compared this to the immediate and long-term complications. A systematic review of existing literature on ICD GR was performed. Selected studies were critically appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Outcomes data were analyzed by random-effects modeling using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), and covariate analyses were conducted using the restricted maximum likelihood function. A total of 31,640 patients across 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis with a median (range) follow-up of 2.9 (1.2-8.1) years. The incidences of total therapies, appropriate shocks, and anti-tachycardia pacing post-GR were approximately 8, 4, and 5 per 100 patient-years, respectively, corresponding to 22%, 12%, and 12% of patients of the total cohort, with a high level of heterogeneity across the studies. Greater anti-arrhythmic drug use and previous shocks were associated with ICD therapies post-GR. The all-cause mortality was approximately 6 per 100 patient-years, corresponding to 17% of the cohort. Diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and the use of digoxin were predictors of all-cause mortality in the univariate analysis; however, none of these were found to be significant predictors in the multivariate analysis. The incidences of inappropriate shocks and other procedural complications were 2 and 2 per 100 patient-years, respectively, which corresponded to 6% and 4% of the entire cohort. Patients undergoing ICD GR continue to require therapy in a significant proportion of cases without any correlation with an improvement in LVEF. Further prospective studies are necessary to risk-stratify ICD patients undergoing GR.

Successful Catheter Ablation of the "R on T" Ventricular Fibrillation

In patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (VF), recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks might increase mortality risk and reduce patients’ quality of life. Catheter ablation of triggering ectopic beats is considered to be an effective method. We present a patient with recurrent VF, caused by the “R on T” premature ventricular complexes. In the presented case radiofrequency catheter ablation efficiently eliminated arrhythmia trigger, which was possible to detect thanks to the intracardiac electrocardiograms (ECG’s) stored in the ICD.

Evaluation of a Fully Automatic Measurement of Short-Term Variability of Repolarization on Intracardiac Electrograms in the Chronic Atrioventricular Block Dog

Background: Short-term variability (STV) of repolarization of the monophasic action potential duration (MAPD) or activation recovery interval (ARI) on the intracardiac electrogram (EGM) increases abruptly prior to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the chronic AV-block (CAVB) dog model. Therefore, this parameter might be suitable for continuous monitoring of imminent arrhythmias using the EGM stored on an implanted device. However, 24/7 monitoring would require automatic STV_ARI measurement by the device.

Objective: To evaluate a newly developed automatic measurement of STV_ARI for prediction of dofetilide-induced torsade de pointes (TdP) arrhythmias in the CAVB-dog.

Methods: Two retrospective analyses were done on data from recently performed dog experiments. (1) In seven anesthetized CAVB-dogs, the new automatic STV_ARI method was compared with the gold standard STV_MAPD at baseline and after dofetilide administration (0.025 mg/kg in 5 min). (2) The predictive value of the automatic method was compared to currently used STV_ARI methods, i.e., slope method and fiducial segment averaging (FSA) method, in 11 inducible (≥3 TdP arrhythmias) and 10 non-inducible CAVB-dogs.

Results: (1) The automatic measurement of STV_ARI had good correlation with STV_MAPD (r² = 0.89; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a small bias of 0.06 ms with limits of agreement between −0.63 and 0.76 ms. (2) STV_ARI of all three methods was significantly different between inducible and non-inducible dogs after dofetilide. The automatic method showed the highest predictive performance with an area under the ROC-curve of 0.93, compared to 0.85 and 0.87 of the slope and FSA methods, respectively. With a threshold of STV set at 1.69 ms, STV_ARI measured with the automatic method had a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.90 in differentiating inducible from non-inducible subjects.

Conclusion: We developed a fully-automatic method for measurement of STV_ARI on the intracardiac EGM that can accurately predict the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the CAVB-dog. Future integration of this method into implantable devices could provide the opportunity for 24/7 monitoring of arrhythmic risk.

The Increment of Short-term Variability of Repolarisation Determines the Severity of the Imminent Arrhythmic Outcome

Ventricular remodelling can make the heart more susceptible to ventricular arrhythmias like torsades de pointes. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of initiation of ventricular arrhythmias and the determining factors for its severity has the potential to uncover new interventions. Beat-to-beat variation of repolarisation, quantified as short-term variability of repolarisation (STV), has been identified as an important factor contributing to arrhythmogenesis. This article provides an overview of experimental data about STV in relation to the initiation of torsades de pointes in a canine model of complete chronic atrioventricular block susceptible to torsades de pointes arrhythmias. Furthermore, it explores STV in relation to the severity of the arrhythmic outcome.

Anti-arrhythmic drug therapy in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the primary and secondary prevention of patients with ventricular arrhythmias. However, the adverse effects of appropriate or inappropriate shocks may require the adjunctive use of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs). Beta blockers are the cornerstone of pharmacological primary and secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias. In addition to their established efficacy at reducing the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, beta-blockers are safe with few side effects. Amiodarone is superior to beta blockers and sotalol for the prevention of ventricular arrhythmia recurrence. However, long-term amiodarone use is associated with significant side effects that limit its utility. Sotalol and mexiletine are the main alternatives to amiodarone with a better side effect profile though they are less efficacious at preventing ventricular arrhythmia recurrence. Dofetilide, azimilide and ranolazine are emerging as therapeutic options for secondary prevention; more studies are needed to assess efficacy and safety in comparison to currently used agents. Beta blockers and amiodarone are the mainstay of therapy in patients experiencing electrical storm; their use reduces the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD intervention as well as affording time until catheter ablation can be considered.

Amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis (AIT) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to describe AIT and its clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review at a heart failure center in Winnipeg, Canada. We screened 1059 consecutive patients seen over a 12-month period (August 2011 to July 2012) for AIT in patients with HFrEF. Using descriptive and Cox proportional hazard analyses, we explored the association between AIT and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients with HFrEF who were exposed to amiodarone were included in the analysis. Of these, 13 (11.8%) were diagnosed with AIT. All AIT patients in our cohort were male. Amiodarone was discontinued in nearly half (46.2%) of patients with AIT. All patients were treated with antithyroid medications, and 5 patients (38.5%) also received prednisone. Euthyroidism was achieved in 2 patients (15.4%), hypothyroidism occurred in 6 patients (46.2%), and 5 patients remained thyrotoxic until death or time of chart review (38.5%).

CONCLUSION

Thyrotoxicosis is common in patients with HFrEF on amiodarone and is challenging to treat. Due to the sample size, while no association was found in mortality for patients with HFrEF with AIT, a real association could have been missed.

Ventricular Tachycardia with ICD Shocks: When to Medicate and When to Ablate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ventricular tachycardia occurrence in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients may result in shock delivery and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In addition, shocks may have deleterious mechanical and psychological effects. Prevention of ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurrence with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation may be warranted. Antiarrhythmic drugs are limited by incomplete efficacy and an unfavorable adverse effect profile. Catheter ablation can be effective but acute complications and long-term VT recurrence risk necessitating repeat ablation should be recognized. A shared clinical decision process accounting for patients' cardiac status, comorbidities, and goals of care is often required.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are four published randomized trials of catheter ablation for sustained monomorphic VT (SMVT) in the setting of ischemic heart disease; there are no randomized studies for non-ischemic ventricular substrates. The most recent trial is the VANISH trial which randomly allocated patients with ICD, prior infarction, and SMVT despite first-line antiarrhythmic drug therapy to catheter ablation or more aggressive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. During 28 months of follow-up, catheter ablation resulted in a 28% relative risk reduction in the composite endpoint of death, VT storm, and appropriate ICD shock (p = 0.04). In a subgroup analysis, patients having VT despite amiodarone had better outcomes with ablation as compared to increasing amiodarone dose or adding mexiletine. There is evidence for the effectiveness of both catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for patients with myocardial infarction, an implantable defibrillator, and VT. If sotalol is ineffective in suppressing VT, either catheter ablation or initiation of amiodarone is a reasonable option. If VT occurs despite amiodarone therapy, there is evidence that catheter ablation is superior to administration of more aggressive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Early catheter ablation may be appropriate in some clinical situations such as patients presenting with relatively slow VT below ICD detection, electrical storms, hemodynamically stable VT, or in very selected patients with left ventricular assist devices. The optimal first-line suppressive therapy for VT, after ICD implantation and appropriate programming, remains to be determined. Thus far, there has not been a randomized controlled trial to compare catheter ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as a first-line treatment; the VANISH-2 study has been initiated as a pilot to examine this question.

The Significance of Shocks in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Recipients

Large-scale implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) trials have unequivocally shown a reduction in mortality in appropriately selected patients with heart failure and depressed left ventricular function. However, there is a strong association between shocks and increased mortality in ICD recipients. It is unclear if shocks are merely a marker of a more severe cardiovascular disease or directly contribute to the increase in mortality. The aim of this review is to examine the relationship between ICD shocks and mortality, and explore possible mechanisms. Data examining the effect of shocks in the absence of spontaneous arrhythmias as well as studies of non-shock therapy and strategies to reduce shocks are analysed to try and disentangle the shocks versus substrate debate.

Emergency Care of Patients with Pacemakers and Defibrillators

Devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are commonly inserted to treat unstable cardiac rhythm disturbances. Despite the benefits of these devices on mortality and morbidity rates, patients often present to the emergency department with complaints related to device insertion or malfunction. Emergency physicians must be able to rapidly identify potential life threats caused by pacemaker malfunction, ICD firing, and complications associated with implantation of the devices.

Prevalence, correlates, and temporal trends in antiarrhythmic drug use at discharge after implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry [NCDR])

Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) can require antiarrhythmic drugs to manage arrhythmias and prevent device shocks. We sought to determine the prevalence, clinical correlates, and institutional variation in the use of antiarrhythmic drugs over time after ICD implantation. From the ICD Registry (2006 to 2011), we analyzed the trends in the use of antiarrhythmic agents prescribed at hospital discharge for patients undergoing first-time ICD placement. The patient, provider, and facility level variables associated with antiarrhythmic use were determined using multivariate logistic regression models. A median odds ratio was calculated to assess the hospital-level variation in the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Of the cohort (n = 500,995), 15% had received an antiarrhythmic drug at discharge. The use of class III agents increased modestly (13.9% to 14.9%, p <0.01). Amiodarone was the most commonly prescribed drug (82%) followed by sotalol (10%). Among the subgroups, the greatest increase in prescribing was for patients who had received a secondary prevention ICD (26% in 2006% and 30% in 2011, p <0.01) or with a history of ventricular tachycardia (23% to 27%, p <0.01). The median odds ratio for antiarrhythmic prescription was 1.45, indicating that 2 randomly selected hospitals would have had a 45% difference in the odds of treating identical patients with an antiarrhythmic drug. In conclusion, antiarrhythmic drug use, particularly class III antiarrhythmic drugs, is common among ICD recipients at hospital discharge and varies by hospital, suggesting an influence from local treatment patterns. The observed hospital variation suggests a role for augmentation of clinical guidelines regarding the use of antiarrhythmic drugs for patients undergoing implantation of an ICD.

Current and emerging antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular tachycardia

Ventricular arrhythmias, including ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), are the principal causes of sudden cardiac death in patients with structural heart disease. While coronary artery disease is the predominant substrate associated with the development of VT, these arrhythmias are known to occur in a variety of disorders, including dilated cardiomyopathy, valvular and congenital heart disease, and cardiac ion channelopathies such as the long QT syndrome. In a minority of patients, VT occurs in the absence of structural heart disease. Despite the established mortality benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients at risk of lethal arrhythmias, recurrent VT/VF events continue to be a source of morbidity and impaired quality of life in such patients. Antiarrhythmic therapy is indicated in select patients to treat symptomatic VT episodes, to reduce the incidence of ICD shocks, and potentially to improve quality of life and reduce hospitalizations related to cardiac arrhythmia. The primary adverse effects of antiarrhythmic medications are related to both cardiac and extracardiac toxicity, including the risk of proarrhythmia. Current drug therapy for ventricular arrhythmia has been limited by suboptimal efficacy in many patients, resulting in recurrent VT/VF events, and by drug toxicity or intolerance leading to discontinuation in a large percentage of patients. Amiodarone and sotalol are the principal agents used in the chronic treatment of VT. In addition, dronedarone and dofetilide, agents approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, and ranolazine, an antianginal agent, have been demonstrated to be protective against ventricular arrhythmia in small clinical studies. Finally, advances in basic electrophysiology have uncovered new molecular targets for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia, and pharmacologic agents directed at these targets may emerge as promising VT treatments in the future. The roles of these current and emerging therapies for the treatment of VT in humans will be summarized in this review.

Chronic oral amiodarone but not dronedarone therapy increases ventricular defibrillation threshold during acute myocardial ischemia in a closed-chest animal model

Dronedarone, a recently approved antiarrhythmic drug, has been shown to have fewer side effects than amiodarone, particularly with regard to thyroid and neurologic events. Since the effects of either drug on ventricular defibrillation threshold during ischemia are unknown, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of dronedarone and amiodarone on defibrillation efficacy during ischemia in a closed-chest animal model. Dronedarone (30 mg·kg·d) and amiodarone (20 mg·kg·d) were administered orally for 3 weeks to 19 and 21 pigs, respectively. A control group (no treatment) comprised 19 pigs. A 2-lead endovascular defibrillation system was used. Each biphasic shock was delivered after 8 seconds of ventricular fibrillation. A step-up/step-down protocol was used to calculate mean defibrillation threshold before and 10 minutes after coronary artery occlusion using an angioplasty balloon in the left descending artery. At basal state, defibrillation threshold did not differ between the control (20.8 ± 4.8 J), amiodarone (21.2 ± 2 J), and dronedarone (19.5 ± 3 J) groups. After ischemia, the amiodarone group had a significantly higher defibrillation threshold than the control group (29.6 ± 3 J vs. 21.8 ± 5 J, respectively; P = 0.015), but the dronedarone (22.8 ± 4 J) and control groups had similar defibrillation threshold values. These data indicate that oral dronedarone treatment, unlike oral amiodarone, does not affect defibrillation threshold during ischemia in pigs.

Effect of spironolactone on ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) often receive an adjunctive anti-arrhythmic therapy. We propose that an addition of spironolactone will reduce the number of clinically significant ventricular arrhythmias and ICD-related therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a multicentre retrospective study, 64 patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was <35% and with ICD were selected. Amongst these patients, 28 patients were on spironolactone and 36 were not taking spironolactone. The ICD interrogation data were analysed for a maximum of 12 months. Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare the study and control groups. The outcomes were: (1) the number of shocks/anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) episodes and (2) the number of episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) requiring ATP, non-sustained VT (NSVT), and ventricular fibrillation (VF) over the study period. The spironolactone group had fewer monthly, VTs (P=0.027) (requiring ATP). The two groups did not differ in the number of NSVT or VF per month.

CONCLUSION

Addition of spironolactone as an adjunct to ICD therapy in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) reduces VT requiring ATP, but does not affect NSVT or VF per month.

[Incessant or recurrent ventricular tachycardia. Indications for emergency ablation]

Incessant ventricular tachycardia and "electrical storms" are emergencies, requiring urgent action in a close cooperation between critical care physicians and cardiologists. The leading cause of such events is advanced cardiac disease. Besides the patient's history, an ECG and, if applicable, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interrogation is required for a reliable diagnosis. Further diagnostics include laboratory parameters, an echocardiogram, and possibly a coronary angiography. The medical therapy, consisting of amiodarone and β-blockers, should immediately be initiated after diagnosis. In the case of failed drug therapy, urgent catheter ablation is indicated. This is a complex procedure, in which the clinical tachycardia or the electrical substrate is modified by using an irrigated catheter. The acute success rate of this life-saving procedure is high. However, there might also be complications due to the required extensive procedures.

Efficacy and safety of celivarone, with amiodarone as calibrator, in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for prevention of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions or death: the ALPHEE study

BACKGROUND

Celivarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent developed for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of celivarone in preventing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions or death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Celivarone (50, 100, or 300 mg/d) was assessed compared with placebo in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Amiodarone (200 mg/d after loading dose of 600 mg/d for 10 days) was used as a calibrator. A total of 486 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and at least 1 ICD intervention for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in the previous month or ICD implantation in the previous month for documented ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation were randomized. Median treatment duration was 9 months. The primary efficacy end point was occurrence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation-triggered ICD interventions (shocks or antitachycardia pacing) or sudden death. The proportion of patients experiencing an appropriate ICD intervention or sudden death was 61.5% in the placebo group; 67.0%, 58.8%, and 54.9% in the celivarone 50-, 100-, and 300-mg groups, respectively; and 45.3% in the amiodarone group. Hazard ratios versus placebo for the primary end point ranged from 0.860 for celivarone 300 mg to 1.199 for celivarone 50 mg. None of the comparisons versus placebo were statistically significant. Celivarone had an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Celivarone was not effective for the prevention of ICD interventions or sudden death.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00993382.

Celivarone in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: adjunctive therapy for the reduction of ventricular arrhythmia-triggered implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) remain the treatment of choice for the prevention of life-threatening arrhythmias. However, many patients with ICDs require additional antiarrhythmic therapy to reduce the morbidity associated with recurrent arrhythmia-triggered ICD interventions.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of celivarone in reducing these interventions.

METHODS

A total of 153 eligible ICD recipients were randomized to receive either placebo or celivarone 100 or 300 mg once daily for 6 months. The primary end point was the prevention of arrhythmia-triggered ICD therapies.

RESULTS

Fewer ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation episodes were observed in the 300-mg celivarone group than in the placebo group, with a relative risk reduction of 46%, which was not statistically significant. The analysis of all-cause shocks showed a trend toward a decreased number of events in the celivarone 300-mg group. A post hoc analysis of the primary end point in a subgroup of patients in the celivarone 300-mg group, who had received ICD therapy within 1 month of randomization, showed a significant benefit (P = .032). Celivarone was not associated with an increased risk of torsades de pointes, thyroid dysfunction, or pulmonary events. More heart failure events were reported in the celivarone groups than in the placebo group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Celivarone tends to reduce ventricular tachycardia-/ventricular fibrillation-triggered ICD therapies. This effect was not statistically significant. There was a trend toward greater efficacy in the 300-mg group, especially in patients undergoing ICD therapy within 30 days prior to randomization. Overall, celivarone was well tolerated.

Acute Antiarrhythmic Therapy of Ventricular Tachycardia and Ventricular Fibrillation

Ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation) are often associated with underlying structural heart disease and require prompt assessment and treatment. Acute treatment involves initial hemodynamic stabilization of the patient followed by suppressive treatment with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches for reducing the risk of recurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and potential development of sudden cardiac death. This article reviews acute antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular arrhythmias based on the clinical presentation.