Effectiveness of ICD therapy in real clinical practice. The Olomouc ICD Registry

BACKGROUND

Clinical parameters linked to a low benefit of ICD implantation and increased mortality risks are needed for an individualized assessment of potential benefits and risks of ICD implantation.

METHODS

Analysis of a prospective registry of all patients hospitalized from 2009 to 2019 in a single centre for a first implantation of any type of ICD.

RESULTS

A total of 2,681 patients were included in the registry. Until the end of follow-up (38.4 ± 29.1 months), 682 (25.4%) patients died. The one-year mortality in all patients, the one-year CV mortality, the three-year mortality in all patients, and the three-year CV mortality were 7.8%, 5.7%, 20.6%, and 14.8%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference when the subgroups were compared according to the type of cardiomyopathy. No significant difference was found between primary and secondary prevention and between the types of devices. Male gender, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation were associated with a significantly increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

In an analysis of a long-term follow-up of 2,681 ICD patients, we found no mortality difference between patients with ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and in the device type. A higher mortality risk was found in men, patients older than 75 years, diabetics, and those with atrial fibrillation.

Echocardiographic Predictors of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients With Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implanted for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death. Results From a two-Year Prospective Follow-up Study

Aim      To compare variables of transthoracic EchoCG for determining echocardiographic predictors and their prognostic role in the development of persistent paroxysmal ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT) in patients with ischemic CHF who had been implanted with a cardioverter defibrillator (CD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Material and methods  This single-site prospective study included 176 patients with CHF of ischemic origin aged 58.7±7.4 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) of 30 % [25; 34] % who had been implanted with CD. The follow-up duration was 24 months. The primary endpoint was a newly developed persistent paroxysm of VT (duration ≥30 sec) detected in the “monitored” VT area or a VT paroxysm that required electric treatment. The echocardiographic picture was evaluated by 28 variables. Statistical analysis was performed with the c2, Fisher’s, and Mann—Whitney tests, and the one-factor logistic regression (LR). Prognostic models were developed with a multifactorial LR. The model accuracy was evaluated by 4 metrics: area under the ROC (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic efficacy.

Results The primary endpoint was observed in 60 (34 %) patients. Mean time to a persistent VT episode was 19.2±0.8 months (95 % confident interval (CI): 17.5–20.8). Superior-inferior dimensions of the right and left atria (RA and LA, respectively) and the left atrial volume (LAv) were independent predictors for VT. The odds of VT development in patients of the study cohort increased with RAl ≥4.5 cm (odds ratio (OR), 1.6; 95 % CI: 1.4–1.9; р=0.03), LAl ≥5.5 cm (OR, 2.5; 95 % CI: 1.01–6.1; р=0.04), LAv ≥95 ml (OR, 3.2; 95 % CI: 1.3–17.5; р=0.01). A comprehensive analysis of echocardiographic variables proved the prognostic potential of LAv that was linearly associated with the development of VT. The metrics of the best prognostic model were AUC 0.7±0.07 with 95 % CI: 0.54–0.83; specificity, 20.9 %; sensitivity, 95.7 %; and diagnostic efficacy, 47 %.

Conclusion      This study allowed evaluation of capabilities of transthoracic EchoCG for predicting the probability of VT in patients with CHF of ischemic origin and reduced LV EF. It was shown that linear and volumetric atrial dimensions could be used for stratification of risk of VT and for determining the tactics for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in this patient category.

Perspectives on the Use of Transthoracic Echocardiography Results for the Prediction of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Aim. To perform a comparative analysis of indicators of transthoracic echocardiography (TE), to establish echocardiographic predictors and their predictive role in the occurrence of stable ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) paroxysms in patients with nonischemic chronic heart failure (HF) and cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Material and Methods. A prospective study was carried out, which included 166 patients with nonischemic HF at the age of 54 (49; 59) years with the left ventricle ejection fraction (LV EF) ≤35% and an ICD implanted. The observation time was 24 months. The primary endpoint was the first-ever stable paroxysm of VT (lasting for ≥30 seconds), detected in the «monitor» zone of VT, or paroxysm of VT, which required ICD therapy.  A total of 34 TE indicators were evaluated. Chi-square, Fischer, Manna-Whitney, single-factor logistic regression (LR), and multi-factor LR were used for data processing and analysis and for predictive modelling. Model accuracy was estimated using 4 metrics: ROC curve area (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic efficiency.

Results. During the two-year observation, 32 patients (19.3%) had a primary endpoint. The average time of occurrence of a stable VT episode was 21.6±0.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.5-22.8 months). The value of LV end-systolic dimension was the only parameter independently associated with VT (odds ratio 2.8 per unit increase, 95% CI 1.04-7.5; p=0.042). The complex analysis of echocardiographic indicators made it possible to identify 5 factors with the greatest predictive potential, which are linearly and nonlinearly related to occurrence of VT. These included the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, LV mass, index of relative LV wall thickness, upper-lower size of the right atrium. The metrics of the best predictive model were: AUC – 0.71 0.069 with 95% CI 0.574-0.843; specificity 50%, sensitivity 90.9%; diagnostic efficiency 57.1%.

Conclusion. The study made it possible to evaluate the possibilities of the results of TE in predicting the probability of VT occurrence in patients with nonischemic HF and reduced LV EF. Predictive indicators have been identified that can be used to stratify the arrhythmic risk in the exposed cohort of patients.

Mortality among ischemic and nonischemic heart failure patients with a primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention is controversial in patients with nonischemic heart failure (HF). We evaluated the mortality and predictors of mortality in patients with prophylactic ICD implantation for ischemic and nonischemic HF.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 1097 patients (667, nonischemic HF and 430, ischemic HF) who underwent prophylactic ICD implantation, were identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. We used propensity score overlap weighting to correct the differences between two groups.

RESULTS

Those with ischemic HF were older (67.0 ± 10.1 vs 61.8 ± 14.2 years), more often male (71.4% vs 63.7%), and had more comorbidities than patients with nonischemic HF. During a median follow-up of 37.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 14.2-53.8 months), all-cause mortality was higher in unweighted patients with ischemic HF than in those with nonischemic HF (10.9 vs 6.4 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.20; P < .001). However, after weighting, the annual all-cause mortality rate was similar in both groups (9.5 vs 8.8 per 100 person-years), with no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.68-1.71; P = .755). Older age and chronic kidney disease were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in both groups. There was no significant difference in cardiac and noncardiac mortality between the weighted nonischemic and ischemic HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality rates were similar between patients with nonischemic and ischemic HF who underwent prophylactic ICD implantation.

Long-Term Outcomes Among a Nationwide Cohort of Patients Using an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: UMBRELLA Study Final Results

Background

Large‐scale studies describing modern populations using an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) are lacking. We aimed to analyze the incidence of arrhythmia, device interventions, and mortality in a broad spectrum of real‐world ICD patients with different heart disorders.

Methods and Results

The UMBRELLA study is a prospective, multicenter, nationwide study of contemporary patients using an ICD followed up by remote monitoring, with a blinded review of arrhythmic episodes. From November 2005 to November 2017, 4296 patients were followed up. After 46.6±27.3 months, 16 067 episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmia occurred in 1344 patients (31.3%). Appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 27.3% of study population. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29–1.78), dilated cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07–1.53), and valvular heart disease (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.43–2.62) exhibited a higher risk of appropriate ICD therapies, whereas patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.96) and Brugada syndrome (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14–0.45) showed a lower risk. All‐cause death was 13.4% at follow‐up. Ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.58–5.90), dilated cardiomyopathy (HR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.18–5.10), and valvular heart disease (HR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.25–6.99) had the worst prognoses. Delayed high‐rate detection was enabled in 39.7% of patients, and single‐zone programming occurred in 52.6% of primary prevention patients. Both parameters correlated with lower risk of first appropriate ICD therapy, with no excess risk of mortality. The rate of inappropriate shocks at follow‐up was low (6%) and did not differ among type of ICD but was lower in SmartShock‐capable devices.

Conclusions

Irrespective of the cause, contemporary ICD patients with heart failure–related disorders had a similar risk of ICD life‐saving interventions and death. Current ICD programming recommendations still need to be implemented.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NTC01561144.

Cardiac Index by Transthoracic Echocardiography (CITE) study

AIMS

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most frequently used parameter in the assessment of heart failure (HF). Cardiac index (CI) is considered a potential alternative to LVEF despite limited evidence. We aimed to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of LVEF and echocardiographically-assessed CI in HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-centre, retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients hospitalized for acute HF from 2010-2016. Cox proportional hazard models including either LVEF or CI were created to predict all cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, or first HF-readmission. Of 334 patients included in the analysis, 58.7% exhibited HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF). Left ventricular ejection fraction did not show correlation with any endpoint, while CI was predictive of HF-readmission in the entire cohort. Both the LVEF-based and CI-based models demonstrated moderate discriminative accuracy when predicting all-cause death, CV death, or HF-readmission. Left ventricular ejection fraction proved to be an independent predictor of CV mortality in HFrEF-patients, while CI was predictive of HF-readmission in the non-HFrEF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Left ventricular ejection fraction seemed to be associated more closely with disease severity in HFrEF, and CI in the non-HFrEF group, in this real-life cohort of elderly HF patients. The LVEF-based and CI-based predictive models have clinically similar predictive accuracy for mortality and HF-readmission, thus CI may be a potential alternative to LVEF in the assessment of left ventricular function. Cardiac index may be an important new tool in the assessment of HF patients with midrange or preserved LVEF.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Sudden cardiac death in acute coronary syndromes mostly results from complex ventricular arrhythmias. Although the incidence has fallen with contemporary management, they still pose a threat for many patients. Treatment consists of immediate termination by electrical cardioversion and prompt coronary revascularization for relief of ischemia. Beta-blockers administered prophylactically have a protective effect. For recurrent episodes, pharmacologic treatment consists of beta-blockers and amiodarone, or, in nonresponsive patients, lidocaine. Other antiarrhythmic drugs play only a marginal role. Catheter ablation performed in qualified centers can be effective in recurrent episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions.