Clinical predictors of antitachycardia pacing response in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients

Anti-tachycardia pacing for non-fast and fast ventricular tachycardias in individual Japanese patients: From Nippon-storm study

BACKGROUND

Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) delivered from an implantable device is a useful tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). But its real-world efficacy for those patients having multiple VTs with varying VT rates has not been fully studied.

METHODS

Using the Nippon-storm study database, efficacy of patient-by-patient basis ATP programing for Japanese patients having both non-fast (120-187 bpm) and fast VT (≥188 bpm) was assessed. According to the useful criteria of ≥50% success termination by ATP, patients were divided into three subgroups; success ≥50% for both non-fast and fast VT (both useful), ≥50% only for non-fast VT (non-fast VT useful), or ≥50% for neither non-fast nor fast VT (neither useful).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 28 months, ATP terminated 184 of the 203 non-fast VT episodes (91%) and 86 of the 113 fast VT episodes (76%) in all 41 patients. In the patient-by-patient analysis, efficacy of ATP was not different between non-fast and fast VT in most of the patients (36/41 = 88%); 32 patients were in the both useful and four other patients in the neither useful. Neither ischemic nor non-ischemic structural heart disease was associated with the ATP efficacy, whereas LVEF more than 37.0% and non-prescribed amiodarone were characteristics of the patients classified into the both useful.

CONCLUSIONS

ATP well terminated both non-fast and fast VT occurring in individual Japanese patients with various structural heart diseases in the real-world device treatment and this finding further supports ATP programing for all device tachycardia detection zones in most patients with multiple VTs.

Patient-by-patient basis anti-tachycardia pacing for fast ventricular tachycardia with structural heart diseases

BACKGROUND

Anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) delivered from an implantable device is an important tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). But its real-world efficacy for fast VT has not been fully studied.

METHODS

Using the database of Nippon-storm study, effect of patient-by-patient basis ATP programming for fast VT (≥188 bpm) was assessed for the patients with structural heart diseases. Fast VTs were divided into three groups depending on heart rate (HR); Group A was 188-209 bpm, and Group-B and Group-C were 210-239 bpm and ≥240 bpm, respectively.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 28 months, 202 fast VT episodes (209 ± 19 bpm) were demonstrated in the 85 patients. ATP terminated 151 of the 202 episodes (74.8%) in total. The success rate of the ATP was not different among the three groups: 73.3% in Group A, 80.6% in Group B, and 66.7% in Group C. ATP success rate of >50% and >70% was 77.6% and 64.7% of the patients, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly higher in the patients with rather than without successful ATP therapy, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that LVEF of 23% was the optimal cut-off value. ATP was less effective in patients taking amiodarone, but etiology of the structural heart diseases, indication of the device implantation, and all Electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters were not useful predictors for successful ATP therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ATP highly terminated fast VT with wide HR ranges in patients with structural heart diseases, and should be considered as the first-line therapy for fast VT except for patients with very low LVEF.

Characteristics of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and their susceptibility to antitachycardia pacing termination in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy: A patient-level meta-analysis of three large clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce all-cause mortality among cardiomyopathy patients. Whether or not antitachycardia pacing (ATP) is equally effective in ischemic (ICM) and nonischemic (NICM) cardiomyopathy patients remains poorly understood. We describe the distribution of monomorphic (MVT) and non-monomorphic (polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation [PVT/VF]) ventricular tachyarrhythmias among ICM and NICM primary prevention patients.

METHODS

This patient-level meta-analysis included primary prevention patients from the Shock-Less (n = 3519), PainFree SST (n = 1917), and PREPARE (n = 690) studies. Distribution of MVT and PVT/VF events were compared with χ² tests. ATP success was estimated using a generalized estimating equation model to correct for multiple episodes for a patient between cohorts for slow (≥320 ms) and fast (240-310 ms) MVTs.

RESULTS

Among 6126 patients, 714 (29% NICM, age 66 ± 13 years, female 18%, EF = 29 ± 12%) had a total of 4444 treated ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes. The rate of individuals treated for MVT or PVT/VF was comparable between ICM (11.9%) and NICM (11.2%) over 21 ± 10 months. In addition, the distribution of MVT (76% ICM vs. 71% NICM) and PVT/VF (15% ICM vs. 20% NICM) was not significantly different (p = .28). Among MVT episodes, the average tachycardia cycle lengths (332 ± 58 ms ICM vs. 313 ± 40 ms NICM; p = .27) were similar, as was the likelihood of ATP-associated termination (74.6% ICM vs. 76.4% NICM; p = .58). Overall, ATP success was higher for slow (≥320 ms) MVT versus faster (240-310 ms) episodes (84.1% vs. 69%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of primary prevention ICD patients, ICM and NICM patients have similar rates and proportions of MVT and PVT/VF episodes. ATP-associated termination of MVT was comparable between the two groups.