Electrophysiology testing for risk stratification of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: a call for action

Cardiac defibrillator implantation in patients with syncope and inducible ventricular arrhythmia: insights from the German Device Registry

History of syncope is an independent predictor for sudden cardiac death. Programmed stimulation may be considered for risk stratification, but data remain sparse among different populations. Here, we analyzed the prognostic value of inducible ventricular arrhythmia (VA) regarding clinical outcome in patients with syncope undergoing defibrillator implantation. Among 4196 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center German Device Registry, patients with syncope and inducible VA (n = 285, 6.8%) vs. those with a secondary preventive indication (n = 1885, 45.2%), defined as previously documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, serving as a control group were studied regarding demographics, device implantation and post-procedural adverse events. Patients with syncope and inducible VA (64.9 ± 14.4 years, 81.1% male) presented less frequently with congestive heart failure (15.1% vs. 29.1%; p < 0.001) and any structural heart disease (84.9% vs. 89.3%; p = 0.030) than patients with a secondary preventive indication (65.0 ± 13.8 years, 81.0% male). Whereas dilated cardiomyopathy (16.8% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.009) was less common, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (5.6% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.010) and Brugada syndrome (2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) were present more often. During 1-year-follow-up, mortality (5.1% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.036) and the rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (5.8% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.027) were lower in patients with syncope and inducible VA. Among patients with inducible VA, post-procedural adverse events including rehospitalization (27.6% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.37) did not differ between those with vs. without syncope. Taken together, patients with syncope and inducible VA have better clinical outcomes than patients with a secondary preventive defibrillator indication, but comparable outcomes to patients without syncope, which underlines the relevance of VA inducibility, potentially irrespective of a syncope.

Usefulness of the Vall d'Hebron Risk Score to stratify the risk of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the Vall d'Hebron-Risk-Score (VH-RS) to stratify the risk of patients with stable ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), and assess whether hemoglobin (Hb) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) provide additional information to the VH-RS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed 673 consecutive patients with ICM who underwent gated SPECT. According to VH-RS, we stratified patients into 4-risk-levels: very-low-risk (VLR), low-risk (LR), moderate-risk (MR), and high-risk (HRi). We considered as MACEs: non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure hospitalization (HF), coronary revascularization (CR), and cardiac death (CD). Also the cardiac-resynchronization-therapy (CRT), and the implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were investigated. During the follow-up (4.8 ± 2.7 years), 379 patients had MACEs (0.18/patient/year). There were no patients in VLR and LR. All patients were reclassified in 3-risk-levels (MRi = 48; HRi = 121; VHRi[very high risk] = 504). Most patients with MACEs were in VHRi level (test-for-trend: MACEs ≥ 1 without CRT/ICD, P < .001; combined non-fatal MI, CD and CR, P < .001; MACEs ≥ 1 with CRT/ICD, P < .001). The Hb and eGFR values do not properly improve the risk stratification obtained by the VH-RS (global-NRI[net-reclassification-improvement] was: (MACEs ≥ 1 without CRT/ICD: - 10.6%; non-fatal MI, CD and CR: - 9.08%; and MACEs ≥ 1 with CRT/ICD: - 8.85%).

CONCLUSION

VH-RS is effective in evaluating risk of patients with stable ICM. In our population, adding Hb and eGFR variables do not improve the performance of the VH-RS.

Ventricular tachycardia-inducibility predicts arrhythmic events in post-myocardial infarction patients with low ejection fraction. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias at electrophysiological study (EPS) has long been suggested as predictive for subsequent arrhythmic events. Nevertheless, the usefulness of EPS in the clinical practice is still unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the predictive power of EPS in primary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Methods

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify studies, which analyzed EPS predictive value in post-MI patients with mean EF < 40% for the composite arrhythmic endpoint defined by: sudden cardiac death (SCD), aborted SCD, ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions.

Results

Nine studies, evaluating 3959 patients with 647 arrhythmic events, were included in the meta-analyses. EPS showed a strong predictive power for the arrhythmic endpoint with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 4.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.30–6.96) in the whole set of studies, albeit a high level of heterogeneity among studies. EPS predictive power was higher in studies where VT-inducibility was tested (OR 6.52; 95% CI: 2.30–18.44; sensitivity 0.65, specificity 0.78, and negative predictive value 0.94), versus those assessing VT/VF-inducibility (OR 2.09; 95% CI: 1.34–3.26). VT-inducibility was predictive even when assessed within one month after MI (OR 7.85; 95% CI: 3.67–16.80).

Conclusions

Inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias at EPS is a strong predictor of the arrhythmic endpoint in post-MI patients with impaired EF, particularly when VT-inducibility is tested. EPS could help selecting the patients who can mostly benefit from ICD therapy.

Do We Need an Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Patients?

Collapse