Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in patients with an ICD: unlimited potential or replete with complexity and problems?

The Effect of Induction Method on Defibrillation Threshold and Ventricular Fibrillation Cycle Length

INTRODUCTION

Since no clinical data are available on the comparison of the "shock on T-wave" and "high frequency burst" ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction modes during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, we aimed to compare these two methods during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

METHODS

The DFT was determined with a step-down protocol using biphasic, anodal polarity (100%, 40%, 20% voltage control) shocks. Patients were randomized: VF was induced by 50 Hz burst in group B (n = 45) and T-wave shock in group T (n = 41). The DFT was defined as the lowest energy level that terminated VF; confirmed DFT (DFTc) was defined as the minimal energy level that consecutively terminated VF twice. Success rate of DFTc was calculated during an intraindividual test for the alternate induction method.

RESULTS

A total of 546 episodes of VF were induced: n = 278 (B) vs n = 268 (T). Incidence of VT during inductions was 9.9% (B) vs 2.7% (T), P < 0.05. Neither the DFT, 8.8 +/- 4.0 J (B) vs 9.7 +/- 4.2 J (T), nor the DFTc, 10.6 +/- 5.1 J (B) vs 10.8 +/- 4.2 J (T), proved to be significantly different. A significant correlation was found between VF cycle length (CL) and the concomitant DFT (r = 0.298, P < 0.05) in group T only. Subgroup analysis of patients under chronic class III antiarrhythmic treatment showed no increase of the DFT in either group and significantly lower incidence of VT induction in group T regardless of antiarrhythmic treatment.

CONCLUSION

The DFT and the VFCL proved to be independent of the VF induction method. The T-wave shock was more unlikely to induce VT during DFT testing. These results suggest that both methods are reliable in DFT determination, though T-wave shock application is a more reliable method for DFT testing.

Implantable cardioverter/defibrillator therapy in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: single-center experience of long-term follow-up and complications in 60 patients

BACKGROUND

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a major cause of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and cardiac arrest in young patients. We hypothesized that treatment with implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) is safe and improves the long-term prognosis of ARVC patients at high risk of sudden death.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty patients with ARVC (aged 43+/-16 years) were treated with transvenous ICD systems. Despite a higher number of right ventricular sites tested for adequate lead positions (P<0.05), lower R-wave amplitudes (P<0.001) were achieved in ARVC patients compared with other entities. During follow-up of 80+/-43 months (396 patient-years), event-free survival was 49%, 30%, 26%, and 26% for appropriate ICD therapies and 79%, 64%, 59%, and 56% for potentially fatal VT (>240 bpm) after 1, 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified extensive right ventricular dysfunction as an independent predictor of appropriate ICD discharge. Fifty-three adverse events occurred in 37 patients during the perioperative (n=10) or follow-up (n=43) period, mainly related to the leads (n=31 in 21 patients). No lead perforation was observed. Freedom from adverse events was 90%, 78%, 56%, and 42% and freedom from lead-related complications was 95%, 85%, 74%, and 63% after 1, 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results strongly suggest an improvement in long-term prognosis by ICD therapy in high-risk patients with ARVC. However, meticulous placement and long-term observation of transvenous lead performance with focus on sensing function are required for the prevention and/or early recognition of disease progression and lead-related morbidity during long-term follow-up of ICD therapy in ARVC.