Classification of death in patients under antiarrhythmic treatment

Designation and distribution of events in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT)

Patients with coronary artery disease, depressed left ventricular ejection fraction, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) have a high mortality rate due to arrhythmic (arrhythmic death/cardiac arrest) and other cardiac causes. The Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) investigated whether electrophysiologic study (EPS) was helpful in choosing drug or defibrillator therapy in patients induced into sustained VT. The events committee attempted to categorize follow-up events in patients in MUSTT and to present a detailed breakdown of events. A derivative of the Hinkle-Thaler classification was used, incorporating lessons from other multicenter studies. The committee was blinded to results of EPS and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or other antiarrhythmic therapy status of patients. The primary end point was cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia. Secondary end points were death from all causes, cardiac causes, and spontaneous sustained VT. Classifications were death and cardiac arrest. Each was similarly divided as arrhythmic with 14 subcategories, e.g., unwitnessed or related to EPS and nonarrhythmic with 10 subcategories, e.g., ischemia. Terminal VF in progressive heart failure was considered nonarrhythmic. Events were reviewed by 2 members. Disagreements were resolved by the 2 members or, if needed, by the full committee. Of the 2,202 patients in MUSTT, there were 902 deaths. Sustained VT requiring cardioversion occurred in 182 patients. An additional 94 patients had resuscitated cardiac arrests. Events occurred in 1,027 patients, and all were reviewed. The 3 leading events were deaths that were classed as sudden/unwitnessed (23% of 902), due to progressive heart failure (22%), or due to noncardiovascular causes (18%). Arrhythmic deaths or cardiac arrests were highest in inducible patients randomized to no antiarrhythmic therapy; next were inducible patients receiving an ICD; and lowest were in patients who were noninducible. In conclusion, the classification system provided a detailed breakdown of events in consistent categories, showing utility for event analysis and interpretation and development of therapeutic strategies. The classifications assigned by the committee were used in all MUSTT outcomes reports, thus affecting all reported outcomes and overall interpretations of the MUSTT.

The top ten fallacies of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) continues to remain a subject of controversy. This is true despite a wealth of epidemiologic and basic/clinical laboratory findings that have accumulated during the past 2 decades. However, these data not only generate the impetus to conduct further research, but also provide compelling arguments against continued adherence to time honored precepts about NSVT that evolved since the inception of the "PVC Hypothesis," although never substantiated by rigorous scientific inquiry. This paper discusses the "top ten" fallacies of NSVT and details the data that support abandonment of them.

Risk assessment and risk stratification in sudden cardiac death: a biostatistician's view

Determining individual probabilities of developing lethal arrhythmia over time (risk assessment) and grouping individuals by that probability (risk stratification) are similar to, yet differ in purpose from, screening, diagnosis, risk factor identification, and prognostic staging. Methods of handling bias, use of multiple predictors, and evaluation of results provide challenges. A key purpose of risk assessment and stratification is examined. The role of operational definitions of predictors and events and of methods that account for multiple predictors and known confounding factors is analyzed. Constructed examples illustrate potential pitfalls in assessment and how multivariate techniques can deal with multiple predictors. A trial design to evaluate risk stratification for the identified purpose is elaborated and potential results are interpreted. Bias from predictors regressing to the mean can be minimized either by averaging a number of measurements or by equalizing the bias in comparison groups. An analysis of two predictors and two risk strata illustrates how the discrimination of combined predictors may be greater than the sum of the individual variables' discrimination. Risk stratification can be evaluated in trials that randomize competing interventions within different risk strata. Results of such trials indicate whether the risk strata adequately distinguish individuals by their responsiveness to particular intervention. Potential pitfalls, not easily recognized in risk stratification, can be avoided in the methods and in studies for evaluating those methods. Multivariate techniques maximize the discrimination of multiple predictors, but may increase complexity. Randomized trials of treatment provide evidence for utility of risk stratification.

Classification of death in antiarrhythmia trials

OBJECTIVES

We sought to develop and apply a new scheme for the classification of death to be used in trials of antiarrhythmia treatments.

BACKGROUND

Because presently accepted classifications of death do not fully describe or tabulate all significant aspects of terminal events, nor do they consider unique aspects of arrhythmia investigations, a new classification scheme that addresses these issues is desirable.

METHODS

A classification scheme of deaths that occur in antiarrhythmia trials was developed using the following categories: 1) primary organ cause (cardiac [arrhythmic, nonarrhythmic or unknown], noncardiac or unknown); 2) temporal course (sudden, nonsudden or unknown); 3) documentation (witnessed, monitored [yes, no or unknown]); 4) operative relation (preoperative, perioperative or postoperative); and 5) system relation (procedure related, pulse generator related and lead related [yes, no or unknown]).

RESULTS

The classification scheme was used in a clinical trial of a new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (1,250 patients, of whom 79 died) and used in an application for device market approval. Application of the classification to data reported using an older classification scheme is demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a descriptive classification scheme that 1) fully describes and tabulates all significant aspects of terminal events; 2) incorporates previously used categorizations of death and new categorizations that address unique aspects of arrhythmia investigations; and 3) tabulates sufficient data to allow comparison with other studies. Events in a clinical trial of implantable defibrillator therapy were classified using the new classification scheme.

Exploration of the precision of classifying sudden cardiac death. Implications for the interpretation of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

As cardiovascular clinical trials improve in sophistication and therapies target specific cardiac mechanisms of death, a more objective and precise system to identify specific cause of death is needed. Ideally, sudden cardiac death would describe patients dying of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. In this context, we explored the precision of current sudden death classification and implications for clinical trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Deaths were analyzed in 834 patients who received an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Three arrhythmia experts used a standard prospective classification system to classify deaths into accepted categories: sudden cardiac, nonsudden cardiac, and noncardiac. New aspects to this study included analysis of autopsy results and ICD interrogation for arrhythmias at the time of death. All of the patients receiving the ICD previously had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Of the 109 subsequent deaths in the 834-patient database, 17 (16%) were classified as sudden cardiac. Compared with the nonsudden cardiac and noncardiac categories, sudden cardiac death was more often identified in outpatients (59% versus 10%) and witnessed less often (41% versus 86%; both P < .001). The autopsy information contradicted and changed the clinical perception of a "sudden cardiac death" in 7 cases (myocardial infarction [n = 1], pulmonary embolism [n = 2], cerebral infarction [n = 1], ruptured thoracic [n = 1], and abdominal aortic aneurysms [n = 2]). Interpretable ICD interrogation was available in 53% of the deaths (47% unavailable: buried, programmed off, or other technical reasons). When evaluated, only 7 of 17 "sudden deaths" were associated with ICD discharges near the time of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a group of patients with an ICD, deaths classified as sudden cardiac frequently were not associated with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and were often noncardiac. It is possible to create a wide range of sudden cardiac death rates (more than fourfold) using the identical clinical database despite objective, prespecified criteria. Autopsy results frequently reveal noncardiac causes of clinical events simulating sudden cardiac death. ICD interrogation revealed that ICD discharges were often related to terminal arrhythmias incidental to the primary pathophysiological process leading to death.