Left ventricular dimensions predict risk of appropriate shocks but not mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator recipients with left bundle-branch block and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy

Prognostic Implications of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ICD

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a suboptimal indicator of risk stratification for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Studies have shown that left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was associated with all-cause mortality and ventricular arrhythmias. We examined the quantified prognostic value of LVEF and LVEDD for clinical outcomes, respectively. Method: This study retrospectively enrolled patients with ICD implantation in a single center. The associations between LVEF or LVEDD and all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks were analyzed using Cox regression and Fine-gray competing risk regression, respectively. Result: During a median follow up of 59.6 months, 168/630 (26.7%) patients died. LVEF and LVEDD were strongly associated with all-cause mortality (LVEF per 10%: HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.64−0.93, p = 0.006; LVEDD per 10 mm: HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.27−1.85, p < 0.001). After a median interrogation time of 37.1 months, 156 (24.8%) patients received at least one shock. LVEF was not associated with appropriate shock, whereas larger LVEDD (per 10 mm) was significantly associated with a higher risk of shock (HR: 1.27, 95%CI 1.06−1.52, p = 0.008). The addition of LVEF or LVEDD to clinical factors provided incremental prognostic value and discrimination improvement for all-cause mortality, while only the addition of LVEDD to clinical factors improved prognostic value for shock intervention. Conclusions: Baseline LVEF and LVEDD show a linear relationship with all-cause mortality in patients with ICD. However, whereas LVEF is not associated with shock, a linear relationship exists between LVEDD and appropriate shock. LVEDD adds more predictive value in relation to all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks than LVEF.

Impact of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair Using the MitraClipTM System on Ventricular Arrhythmias and ICD Therapies

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using the MitraClip™ device has been established as a suitable alternative to mitral valve surgery in patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and high or prohibitive surgical risk. Only limited information regarding the impact of TEER on ventricular arrhythmias (VA) has been reported. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of TEER using the MitraClip^TM device on the burden of VA and ICD (Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator) therapies. Among 600 MitraClip^TM implantations performed in our clinic between September 2009 and October 2018, we identified 86 patients with successful TEER and an active implantable cardiac device (pacemaker, ICD, CRT-P/D (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy-Pacemaker/Defibrillator)) eligible for retrospective VA analyses. These patients presented with mainly functional MR (81.4%) and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mean LVEF 22.1% ± 10.3%). The observation period comprised 456 ± 313 days before and 424 ± 287 days after TEER. The burden of ventricular arrhythmias (sustained ventricular tachycardia (sVT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF)) was significantly reduced after TEER (0.85 ± 3.47 vs. 0.43 ± 2.03 events per patient per month, p = 0.01). Furthermore, the rate of ICD therapies (anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and ICD shock) decreased significantly after MitraClip^TM implantation (1.0 ± 3.87 vs. 0.32 ± 1.41, p = 0.014). However, reduction of VA burden did not result in improved two-year survival in this patient cohort with severely reduced LVEF. Mitral valve TEER using the MitraClip™ device was associated with a significant reduction of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD therapies.

What causes sudden death in patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction?

Sudden death characterizes the mode of demise in 30–50% of patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. Occasionally, these events have an identifiable pathophysiological trigger, e.g. myocardial infarction, catecholamine surges, or electrolyte imbalances, but in most circumstances, there is no acute precipitating mechanism. Instead, adverse left ventricular remodelling and fibrosis creates an exceptionally fragile and highly vulnerable substrate, which can be characterized using the model developed in theoretical physics of ‘self-organizing criticality’. This framework has been applied to describe the genesis of avalanches, nodes of traffic congestion unrelated to an accident, the abrupt system-wide failure of electrical grids, and the initiation of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Self-organizing criticality within the ventricular myocardium relies on complex adaptations to progressive stress and stretch, which evolve inevitably to an abrupt end (termed ‘cascading failure’), even though the rate of deterioration of the underlying disease process has not changed. The result is acute circulatory collapse (i.e. sudden death) in the absence of an identifiable triggering event. Cascading failure in a severely remodelled or fibrotic heart can become manifest electrically as a first-time ventricular tachyarrhythmia that is responsive to the shock delivered by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Alternatively, it may present as an acute mechanical failure, which is manifest as (i) asystole, bradyarrhythmia, or electromechanical dissociation; or (ii) incessant ventricular fibrillation that persists despite repetitive ICD discharges; in both instances, the sudden deaths cannot be prevented by an ICD. This conceptual framework explains why anti-remodelling and antifibrotic interventions (i.e. neurohormonal antagonists and cardiac resynchronization) reduce the risk of sudden death in patients with heart failure in the absence of an ICD and provide incremental benefits in those with an ICD. The adoption of anti-remodelling and antifibrotic treatments may explain why the incidence of sudden death in clinical trials of heart failure has declined dramatically over the past 10–15 years, independent of the use of ICDs.

Combination of Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter and QRS Duration Strongly Predicts Good Response to and Prognosis of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Approximately 20–40% of recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not respond to it based on the current patient selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to identify baseline parameters that can predict CRT response and to evaluate the effect of those predictive parameters on long-term prognosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective, nonrandomized, noncontrolled cohort study. Patients who received CRT in our centre were divided into responders and nonresponders by the definition of CRT response (an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥5% and improvement of ≥1 New York Heart Association (NYHA) class from baseline to the 6-month follow-up).

Results

Of the 101 patients, 68 were responders and 33 were nonresponders. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD; OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81–0.95, P=0.001) and QRS duration (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04–1.10, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of CRT response. The combination of LVEDD and QRS duration was more valuable for predicting CRT response (AUC 0.836; 95% CI: 0.76–0.91; P < 0.001). Moreover, the combination of LVEDD ≤ 71 mm and QRS duration ≥ 170 ms had a low incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, and the composite endpoint. In addition, baseline LVEDD had a positive correlation with QRS duration (R=0.199, P=0.046). Responders to CRT had better LV reverse remodeling.

Conclusion

The combination of LVEDD and QRS duration provided more robust prediction of CRT response. Moreover, the combination of LVEDD ≤ 71 mm and QRS duration ≥ 170 ms was associated with a low incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, and the composite endpoint. Our results may be useful to provide individualized patient selection for CRT.

[Continuation of ICD treatment at the time of device exchange without adequate treatment?]

INTRODUCTION

Due to improved treatment of heart failure, patients are older and have more comorbidities at the time of an elective device exchange. This leads to higher rates of complications and represents an opportunity for re-evaluation of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the current literature regarding the indications for continued ICD therapy and device exchange in patients who have never received adequate treatment through the ICD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with primarily prophylactic indications, who have not received adequate treatment and have shown significant improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35%, have a significantly lower risk of ventricular arrythmia (VA) after device exchange. Although further ventricular events can occur in these patients, the continuation of ICD treatment should be individually discussed in cases of high age and increased comorbidities. In female patients with a non-ischemic cardiac myopathy and an almost normalized LVEF, mostly during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), a discontinuation of ICD treatment or downgrading to CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P) treatment should be discussed.

CONCLUSION

At the time of an elective device exchange for primarily prophylactic indications, the possibility to discontinue ICD treatment can be discussed with patients who have not experienced adequate treatment. Additional factors, such as LVEF, age, sex and comorbidities of the patient should be taken into consideration in order to make an individualized decision. As prospective randomized studies are lacking, it is not possible to give generally valid recommendations.

Myocardial recovery after cardiac resynchronization therapy in left bundle branch block-associated idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy: A NEOLITH II substudy

BACKGROUND

Baseline predictors of myocardial recovery after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in left bundle branch block (LBBB)-associated idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) are unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective study included subjects with idiopathic NICM, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and LBBB. Myocardial recovery was defined as post-CRT LVEF ≥50%. Logistic regression analyses described associations between baseline characteristics and myocardial recovery. Cox regression analyses estimated the hazard ratio (HR) between myocardial recovery status and adverse clinical events.

RESULTS

In 105 subjects (mean age 61 years, 44% male, mean initial LVEF 22.6% ± 6.6%, 81% New York Heart Association class III, and 98% CRT-defibrillators), myocardial recovery after CRT was observed in 56 (54%) subjects. Hypertension, heart rate, and serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN) had negative associations with myocardial recovery in univariable analyses. These associations persisted in multivariable analysis: hypertension (odds ratio (OR), 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.95; p = 0.04), heart rate (OR per 10 bpm, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.997; p = 0.048), and serum BUN (OR per 1 mg/dl, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; p = 0.04). Subjects with post-CRT LVEF ≥50%, when compared to <50%, had lower risk for adverse clinical events (heart failure hospitalization, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing therapy, ventricular assist device implantation, heart transplantation, and death) over a median follow-up of 75.9 months (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.88; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In LBBB-associated idiopathic NICM, myocardial recovery after CRT was associated with absence of hypertension, lower heart rate, and lower serum BUN. Those with myocardial recovery had fewer adverse clinical events.