Effect of Left Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation on the Electromechanical Window in Patients with either Type 1 or Type 2 Long QT Syndrome: A Pilot Study

The electromechanical window for arrhythmia-risk assessment

The electromechanical window (EMW) is calculated by subtracting the repolarization duration from a mechanical reference representing contraction duration in the same heartbeat (eg, aortic valve closure during echocardiography with simultaneous electrocardiography). Here, we review the current knowledge on the role of the EMW as an independent parameter for ventricular arrhythmia-risk stratification. We (1) provide a standardized approach to echocardiographic EMW assessment, (2) define relevant cutoff values for both abnormal EMW negativity and positivity, (3) discuss pathophysiological underpinnings of EMW negativity, and (4) outline the potential future role of cardiac electromechanical relations in patients with proarrhythmic conditions.

Predictive Value of Electromechanical Window for Risk of Fatal Ventricular Arrhythmia

BACKGROUND

As an indicator of electro-mechanical coupling, electromechanical window (EMW) can be used to predict fatal ventricular arrhythmias. We investigated the additive effect of EMW on the prediction of fatal ventricular arrhythmias in high-risk patients.

METHODS

We included patients who had implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implanted for primary or secondary prevention. The event group was defined as those who received an appropriate ICD therapy. We acquired echocardiograms at ICD implantation and follow-up. The EMW was calculated as the difference between the interval from QRS onset to aortic valve closure and QT interval from the electrocardiogram embedded in the continuous wave doppler image. We evaluated the predictive value of EMW for predicting fatal ventricular arrhythmia.

RESULTS

Of 245 patients (67.2 ± 12.8 years, 63.7% men), the event group was 20.0%. EMW at baseline (EMW-Baseline) and follow-up (EMW-FU) was significantly different between event and control groups. After adjustment, both EMW-Baseline (odds ratio [OR]_adjust 1.02 [1.01-1.03], P = 0.004) and EMW-FU (OR_adjust 1.06 [1.04-1.07], P < 0.001) remained as significant predictors for fatal arrhythmic events. Adding EMW-Baseline significantly improved the discriminating ability of the multivariable model including clinical variables (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77 [0.70-0.84] vs. AUC 0.72 [0.64-0.80], P = 0.004), while a univariable model using EMW-FU alone showed the best performance among models (AUC 0.87 [0.81-0.94], P = 0.060 against model with clinical variables; P = 0.030 against model with clinical variables and EMW-Baseline).

CONCLUSION

The EMW could effectively predict severe ventricular arrhythmia in ICD implanted patients. This finding supports the importance of incorporating the electro-mechanical coupling index into the clinical practice for predicting future fatal arrhythmia events.

OUP accepted manuscript

An abundance of literature describes physiological and pathological determinants of cardiac performance, building on the principles of excitation–contraction coupling. However, the mutual influencing of excitation–contraction and mechano-electrical feedback in the beating heart, here designated ‘electromechanical reciprocity’, remains poorly recognized clinically, despite the awareness that external and cardiac-internal mechanical stimuli can trigger electrical responses and arrhythmia. This review focuses on electromechanical reciprocity in the long-QT syndrome (LQTS), historically considered a purely electrical disease, but now appreciated as paradigmatic for the understanding of mechano-electrical contributions to arrhythmogenesis in this and other cardiac conditions. Electromechanical dispersion in LQTS is characterized by heterogeneously prolonged ventricular repolarization, besides altered contraction duration and relaxation. Mechanical alterations may deviate from what would be expected from global and regional repolarization abnormalities. Pathological repolarization prolongation outlasts mechanical systole in patients with LQTS, yielding a negative electromechanical window (EMW), which is most pronounced in symptomatic patients. The electromechanical window is a superior and independent arrhythmia-risk predictor compared with the heart rate-corrected QT. A negative EMW implies that the ventricle is deformed—by volume loading during the rapid filling phase—when repolarization is still ongoing. This creates a ‘sensitized’ electromechanical substrate, in which inadvertent electrical or mechanical stimuli such as local after-depolarizations, after-contractions, or dyssynchrony can trigger abnormal impulses. Increased sympathetic-nerve activity and pause-dependent potentiation further exaggerate electromechanical heterogeneities, promoting arrhythmogenesis. Unraveling electromechanical reciprocity advances the understanding of arrhythmia formation in various conditions. Real-time image integration of cardiac electrophysiology and mechanics offers new opportunities to address challenges in arrhythmia management.

Exercise worsening of electromechanical disturbances: A predictor of arrhythmia in long QT syndrome

Background

Electromechanical (EM) coupling heterogeneity is significant in long QT syndrome (LQTS), particularly in symptomatic patients; EM window (EMW) has been proposed as an indicator of interaction and a better predictor of arrhythmia than QTc.

Hypothesis

To investigate the dynamic response of EMW to exercise in LQTS and its predictive value of arrhythmia.

Methods

Forty‐seven LQTS carriers (45 ± 15 years, 20 with arrhythmic events), and 35 controls underwent exercise echocardiogram. EMW was measured as the time difference between aortic valve closure on Doppler and the end of QT interval on the superimposed electrocardiogram (ECG). Measurements were obtained at rest, peak exercise (PE) and 4 minutes into recovery.

Results

Patients did not differ in age, gender, heart rate, or left ventricular ejection fraction but had a negative resting EMW compared with controls (−42 ± 22 vs 17 ± 5 ms, P < 0.0001). EMW became more negative at PE (−89 ± 43 vs 16 ± 7 ms, P = 0.0001) and recovery (−65 ± 39 vs 16 ± 6 ms, P = 0.001) in patients, particularly the symptomatic, but remained unchanged in controls. PE EMW was a stronger predictor of arrhythmic events than QTc (AUC:0.765 vs 0.569, P < 0.001). B‐blockers did not affect EMW at rest but was less negative at PE (BB: −66 ± 21 vs no‐BB: −113 ± 25 ms, P < 0.001). LQT1 patients had worse PE EMW negativity than LQT2.

Conclusion

LQTS patients have significantly negative EMW, which worsens with exercise. These changes are more pronounced in patients with documented arrhythmic events and decrease with B‐blocker therapy. Thus, EMW assessment during exercise may help improve risk stratification and management of LQTS patients.