Arrhythmic risk stratification in heart failure: Time for the next step?

Association of non-invasive electrocardiographic risk factors with left ventricular systolic function in post-myocardial infarction patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study

Background

Electrocardiographic non‐invasive risk factors (NIRFs) have an important role in the arrhythmic risk stratification of post‐myocardial infarction (post‐MI) patients with preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, their specific relation to left ventricular systolic function remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association between NIRFs and LVEF in the patients included in the PRESERVE‐EF trial.

Methods

We studied 575 post‐MI ischemia‐free patients with LVEF≥40% (mean age: 57.0 ± 10.4 years, 86.2% men). The following NIRFs were evaluated: premature ventricular complexes, non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), late potentials (LPs), prolonged QTc, increased T‐wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, and abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence.

Results

There was a statistically significant relationship between LPs (Chi‐squared = 4.975; p < .05), nsVT (Chi‐squared = 5.749, p < .05), PVCs (r= −.136; p < .01), and the LVEF. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that LPs (p = .001) and NSVT (p < .001) were significant predictors of the LVEF. The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that LPs (OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.02–3.05; p = .004) and NSVT (OR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.18–5.04; p = .001) were independent predictors of the mildly reduced LVEF: 40%–49% versus the preserved LVEF: ≥50%.

Conclusion

Late potentials and NSVT are independently related to reduced LVEF while they are independent predictors of mildly reduced LVEF versus the preserved LVEF. These findings may have important implications for the arrhythmic risk stratification of post‐MI patients with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF.

Arrhythmic risk stratification in ischemic, non-ischemic and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A two-step multifactorial, electrophysiology study inclusive approach

Annual arrhythmic sudden cardiac death ranges from 0.6% to 4% in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), 1% to 2% in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), and 1% in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Towards a more effective arrhythmic risk stratification (ARS) we hereby present a two-step ARS with the usage of seven non-invasive risk factors: Late potentials presence (≥ 2/3 positive criteria), premature ventricular contractions (≥ 30/h), non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (≥ 1episode/24 h), abnormal heart rate turbulence (onset ≥ 0% and slope ≤ 2.5 ms) and reduced deceleration capacity (≤ 4.5 ms), abnormal T wave alternans (≥ 65μV), decreased heart rate variability (SDNN < 70ms), and prolonged QT_c interval (> 440 ms in males and > 450 ms in females) which reflect the arrhythmogenic mechanisms for the selection of the intermediate arrhythmic risk patients in the first step. In the second step, these intermediate-risk patients undergo a programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) for the detection of inducible, truly high-risk ICM and NICM patients, who will benefit from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. For HCM patients, we also suggest the incorporation of the PVS either for the low HCM Risk-score patients or for the patients with one traditional risk factor in order to improve the inadequate sensitivity of the former and the low specificity of the latter.

Noninvasive risk factors for the prediction of inducibility on programmed ventricular stimulation in post-myocardial infarction patients with an ejection fraction ≥40% at risk for sudden cardiac arrest: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study

Background

In the PRESERVE‐EF study, a two‐step sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk stratification approach to detect post‐myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% at risk for major arrhythmic events (MAEs) was used. Seven noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) were extracted from a 24‐h ambulatory electrocardiography (AECG) and a 45‐min resting recording. Patients with at least one NIRF present were referred for invasive programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) and inducible patients received an Implantable Cardioverter ‐ Defibrillator (ICD).

Methods

In the present study, we evaluated the performance of the NIRFs, as they were described in the PRESERVE‐EF study protocol, in predicting a positive PVS. In the PRESERVE‐EF study, 152 out of 575 patients underwent PVS and 41 of them were inducible. For the present analysis, data from these 152 patients were analyzed.

Results

Among the NIRFs examined, the presence of signal averaged ECG‐late potentials (SAECG‐LPs) ≥ 2/3 and non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) ≥1 eposode/24 h cutoff points were important predictors of a positive PVS study, demonstrating in the logistic regression analysis odds ratios 2.285 (p = .027) and 2.867 (p = .006), respectively. A simple risk score based on the above cutoff points in combination with LVEF < 50% presented high sensitivity but low specificity for a positive PVS.

Conclusion

Cutoff points of NSVT ≥ 1 episode/24 h and SAECG‐LPs ≥ 2/3 in combination with a LVEF < 50% were important predictors of inducibility. However, the final decision for an ICD implantation should be based on a positive PVS, which is irreplaceable in risk stratification.

Sympathetic Activation and Arrhythmogenesis after Myocardial Infarction: Where Do We Stand?

Myocardial infarction often leads to progressive structural and electrophysiologic remodeling of the left ventricle. Despite the widespread use of β-adrenergic blockade and implantable defibrillators, morbidity and mortality from chronic-phase ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains high, calling for further investigation on the underlying pathophysiology. Histological and functional studies have demonstrated extensive alterations of sympathetic nerve endings at the peri-infarct area and flow-innervation mismatches that create a highly arrhythmogenic milieu. Such accumulated evidence, along with the previously well-documented autonomic dysfunction as an important contributing factor, has stirred intense research interest for pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic neuromodulation in post-infarction heart failure. In this regard, aldosterone inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors have shown antiarrhythmic effects. Non-pharmacologic modalities, currently tested in pre-clinical and clinical trials, include transcutaneous vagal stimulation, stellate ganglion modulation and renal sympathetic denervation. In this review, we provide insights on the pathophysiology of ventricular arrhythmogenesis post-myocardial infarction, focusing on sympathetic activation.

Arrhythmic risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: the PRESERVE EF study

Aims

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) annual incidence is 0.6–1% in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≥40%. No recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use exist in this population.

Methods and results

We introduced a combined non-invasive/invasive risk stratification approach in post-MI ischaemia-free patients, with LVEF ≥ 40%, in a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Patients with at least one positive electrocardiographic non-invasive risk factor (NIRF): premature ventricular complexes, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, late potentials, prolonged QTc, increased T-wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence, were referred for programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS), with ICDs offered to those inducible. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major arrhythmic event (MAE), namely sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, appropriate ICD activation or SCD. We screened and included 575 consecutive patients (mean age 57 years, LVEF 50.8%). Of them, 204 (35.5%) had at least one positive NIRF. Forty-one of 152 patients undergoing PVS (27–7.1% of total sample) were inducible. Thirty-seven (90.2%) of them received an ICD. Mean follow-up was 32 months and no SCDs were observed, while 9 ICDs (1.57% of total screened population) were appropriately activated. None patient without NIRFs or with NIRFs but negative PVS met the primary endpoint. The algorithm yielded the following: sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.8%, positive predictive value 22%, and negative predictive value 100%.

Conclusion

The two-step approach of the PRESERVE EF study detects a subpopulation of post-MI patients with preserved LVEF at risk for MAEs that can be effectively addressed with an ICD.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier

NCT02124018

Arrhythmic risk stratification in heart failure mid-range ejection fraction patients with a non-invasive guiding to programmed ventricular stimulation two-step approach

BACKGROUND

Although some post myocardial infarction (post-MI) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure (HFmrEF/40%-49%) face an increased risk for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD), current guidelines do not recommend an implantable cardiac defibrilator (ICD). We risk stratified hospitalized HFmrEF patients for SCD with a combined non-invasive risk factors (NIRFs) guiding to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) two-step approach.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients (male = 83%, age = 64 ± 14 years, LVEF = 45 ± 5%, CAD = 69%, DCM = 31%) underwent a NIRFs screening first-step with electrocardiogram (ECG), SAECG, Echocardiography and 24-hour ambulatory ECG (AECG). Thirty-two patients with presence of one of three NIRFs (SAECG ≥ 2 positive criteria for late potentials, ventricular premature beats ≥ 240/24 hours, and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia [VT] episode ≥ 1/24 hours) were further investigated with PVS. Patients were classified as either low risk (Group 1, n = 16, NIRFs-), moderate risk (Group 2, n = 18, NIRFs+/PVS-), and high risk (Group 3, n = 14, NIRFs+/PVS+). All in Group 3 received an ICD.

RESULTS

After 41 ± 18 months, 9 of 48 patients, experienced the major arrhythmic event (MAE) endpoint (clinical VT/fibrillation = 3, appropriate ICD activation = 6). The endpoint occurred more frequently in Group 3 (7/14, 50%) than in Groups 1 and 2 (2/34, 5.8%). Logistic regression model adjusted for PVS, age, and LVEF revealed that PVS was an independent MAE predictor (OR: 21.152, 95% CI: 2.618-170.887, P = .004). Kaplan-Meier curves diverged significantly (log rank, P < .001) while PVS negative predictive value was 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized HFmrEF post-MI and DCM patients, a NIRFs guiding to PVS two-step approach efficiently detected the subgroup at increased risk for MAE.

Updating the Risk Stratification for Sudden Cardiac Death in Cardiomyopathies: The Evolving Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging. An Approach for the Electrophysiologist

The prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in cardiomyopathies (CM) remains a challenge. The current guidelines still favor the implantation of devices for the primary prevention of SCD only in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure (HF) symptoms. The implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a protective barrier against arrhythmic events in CMs, but the benefit does not outweigh the cost in low risk patients. The identification of high risk patients is the key to an individualized prevention strategy. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) provides reliable and reproducible information about biventricular function and tissue characterization. Furthermore, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) quantification and pattern of distribution, as well as abnormal T1 mapping and extracellular volume (ECV), representing indices of diffuse fibrosis, can enhance our ability to detect high risk patients. CMR can also complement electro-anatomical mapping (EAM), a technique already applied in the risk evaluation and in the ventricular arrhythmias ablation therapy of CM patients, providing a more accurate assessment of fibrosis and arrhythmic corridors. As a result, CMR provides a new insight into the pathological substrate of CM. CMR may help identify high risk CM patients and, combined with EAM, can provide an integrated evaluation of scar and arrhythmic corridors in the ablative therapy of ventricular arrhythmias.

Temporal changes of noninvasive electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study

BACKGROUND

Several noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) have been proposed for sudden cardiac death risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF). However, it remains unclear if these factors change over time.

METHODS

We evaluated seven electrocardiographic NIRFs as they were described in the PRESERVE-EF trial in 80 post-MI patients with EF ≥ 40%, at least 40 days after revascularization and 1 year later.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 56 ± 10 years, and 88% were men. Mean EF was 50 ± 5%. The prevalence of (a) positive late potentials (27.5% vs. 28.8%, p = .860), (b) >30 premature ventricular complexes/hour (8.8% vs. 11.3%, p = .598), (c) nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (8.8% vs. 5%, p = .349), (d) standard deviation of normal RR intervals <75 ms (3.8% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000), (e) QTc derived from 24-hr electrocardiography >440 ms (men) or >450 ms (women) (17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 1.000), (f) deceleration capacity ≤4.5 ms and heart rate turbulence onset ≥0% and slope ≤2.5 ms (2.5% vs. 3.8%. p = 1.000), and (g) ambulatory T-wave alternans ≥65 μV in two Holter channels (6.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 1.000) were similar between the two measurements. However, five patients (6.3%) without any NIRFs during the first assessment had at least one positive NIRF at the second assessment and six patients (7.5%) with at least one NIRF at baseline had no positive NIRFs at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

While the prevalence of the examined electrocardiographic NIRFs between the two examinations was similar on a population basis, some patients without NIRFs at baseline developed NIRFs at 1 year and vice versa, highlighting the need for risk factor reassessment during follow-up.

Risk stratification for cardiac mortality using electrocardiographic markers based on 24-hour Holter recordings: the JANIES-SHD study

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines have stated that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the gold standard marker for identifying patients at risk for cardiac mortality. However, little information is present regarding electrocardiographic (ECG) markers. This study aimed to assess ECG markers for predicting mortality or serious arrhythmia in patients with structural heart disease (SHD).

METHODS

In total, 1829 patients were enrolled into the Japanese Multicenter Observational Prospective Study (JANIES study). In this study, we analyzed data of 719 patients (569 men, age 64 ± 13 years) with SHD including mainly ischemic heart disease (65.8%). As ECG markers based on 24-hour Holter recordings, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), ventricular late potentials, and heart rate turbulence (HRT) were assessed. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was fatal arrhythmic events.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 21 ± 11 months, all-cause mortality was eventually observed in 39 patients (5.4%). Among those patients, 32 patients (82%) suffered from cardiac causes such as heart failure and arrhythmia. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that after adjustment for age and LVEF, documented NSVT [hazard ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-5.18, p = 0.02] and abnormal HRT (hazard ratio = 2.40, 95% CI: 1.16-4.93, p = 0.02) were significantly associated with the primary endpoint. These two ECG markers also had significant predictive values with the secondary endpoint. The combined assessment of two ECG markers improved predictive accuracy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that combined assessment of documented NSVT and abnormal HRT based on 24-hour Holter ECG recordings are recommended for predicting future serious events in this population.

Influence of dronedarone (a class III antiarrhythmic drug) on the anticonvulsant potency of four classical antiepileptic drugs in the tonic-clonic seizure model in mice

Increasing evidence indicates that some antiarrhythmic drugs play a pivotal role in seizures, not only in vivo studies on animals, but also in clinical trials. Some of these antiarrhythmic drugs potentiate or alleviate the anticonvulsant action of the classical antiepileptic drugs. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of dronedarone (DRO-a multichannel blocker belonging to the class III of antiarrhythmic drugs) on the anticonvulsant effects of four standard antiepileptic drugs (carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin and valproate) in the tonic-clonic seizure model in mice. Potential acute adverse effects exerted by the antiepileptic drugs combined with DRO were evaluated in three behavioral tests (chimney, grip-strength and passive avoidance). To confirm the nature of interaction, total brain concentrations of antiepileptic drugs were measured. DRO (50 mg/kg, i.p.) significantly reduces the anticonvulsant potency of phenytoin (P < 0.05), having no impact on that of carbamazepine, phenobarbital and valproate in the tonic-clonic seizure model in mice. DRO (50 mg/kg) neither changed total brain concentrations of phenytoin in mice, nor affected normal behavior in experimental animals subjected to the chimney, grip-strength and passive avoidance tests. In conclusion, DRO should not be combined with phenytoin because it reduced the anticonvulsant effects of the latter drug in experimental animals. The combined administration of DRO with carbamazepine, phenobarbital and valproate resulted in neutral interaction between these drugs in the tonic-clonic seizure model in mice.

Signal-averaged electrocardiography: Past, present, and future

Signal-averaged electrocardiography records delayed depolarization of myocardial areas with slow conduction that can form the substrate for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This technique has been examined mostly in patients with coronary artery disease, but its use has been declined over the years. However, several lines of evidence, derived from hitherto clinical data in patients with healed myocardial infarction, indicate that signal-averaged electrocardiography remains a valuable tool in risk stratification, especially when incorporated into algorithms encompassing invasive and noninvasive indices. Such an approach can aid the more precise identification of candidates for device therapy, in the context of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This article reappraises the value of signal-averaged electrocardiography as a predictor of arrhythmic outcome in patients with ischemic heart disease and discusses potential future indications.

Arrhythmic risk stratification in heart failure: Time for the next step?

BACKGROUND

Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death by means of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators constitutes the holy grail of arrhythmology. However, current risk stratification algorithms lead to suboptimal outcomes, by both allocating ICDs to patients not deriving any meaningful survival benefit and withholding them from those erroneously considered as low-risk for arrhythmic mortality.

METHODS

In the present review article we will attempt to present shortcomings of contemporary guidelines regarding sudden death prevention in ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy patients and present available data suggesting encouraging results following implementation of multifactorial approaches, by using multiple modalities, both noninvasive and invasive. Invasive electrophysiological testing, namely programmed ventricular stimulation, will be discussed in greater length to highlight both its potential usefulness and currently ongoing multicenter studies aiming to provide evidence necessary to make the next step in sudden death risk stratification.

RESULTS

Promising findings have been reported by multiple study groups regarding novel strategies for both negative selection of low and positive selection of relatively preserved ejection fraction patients as candidates for ICD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The era of ejection fraction as the sole risk stratifier for arrhythmic risk in heart failure appears to be drawing to an end, especially if current underway large studies validate previous findings.