Ventricular arrhythmia storm in the era of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation as first-line therapy for the management of ventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation (CA) in line with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in VT management; however, it is unknown if CA should be considered as first-line therapy. The aim of this study is to verify the efficacy and safety of CA as first-line therapy for the first VT presentation (as adjunctive to ICD insertion), compared to initial ICD insertion and anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy.

METHODS

Data from patients with the first presentation for VT from January 2017 to January 2021 was reviewed. Patients were classified as "ablation first" vs "ICD first" groups and compared the clinical outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-four consecutive patients presented with VT; 34 underwent CA as first-line therapy prior to ICD insertion, and 150 had ICD insertion/AAD therapy as first-line. During the median follow-up of 625 days, patients who underwent CA as first-line therapy had significantly higher ventricular arrhythmia (VA)-free survival (91% vs 59%, log-rank P = 0.002) and composite of VA recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization, transplant, and death (84% vs 54%, log-rank P = 0.01) compared to those who did not undergo CA. Multivariate analysis revealed that first-line CA was the only protective predictor of VA recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, P = 0.003). There were 3 (9%) peri-procedural complications with no peri-procedural deaths.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data supports the efficacy and safety of CA as first-line therapy at the time of the first VT hospitalization, compared to the initial ICD implant and AAD therapy.

Mortality after catheter ablation of structural heart disease related ventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data describing mortality after catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT).

OBJECTIVES

We describe the causes and predictors of cardiac transplant and/or mortality following catheter ablation of structural heart disease (SHD) related VT.

METHODS

Over 10-years, 175 SHD patients underwent VT ablation. Clinical characteristics, and outcomes, were compared between patients undergoing transplant and/or dying and those surviving.

RESULTS

During 2.8 (IQR 1.9-5.0) years follow-up, 37/175 (21%) patients underwent transplant and/or died following VT ablation. Prior to ablation, these patients were older (70.3 ± 11.1 vs. 62.1 ± 13.9 years, P = 0.001), had lower left ventricular ejection fraction ([LVEF] 30 ± 12% vs. 44 ± 14%, P < 0.001), and were more likely to have failed amiodarone (57% vs. 39%, P = 0.050), compared to those that survived. Predictors of transplant and/or mortality included LVEF≤35% (HR 4.71 [95% CI 2.18-10.18], P < 0.001), age ≥ 65 years (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.01-4.73], P = 0.047), renal impairment (HR 3.73 [95% CI 1.80-7.74], P < 0.001), amiodarone failure (HR 2.67 [95% CI 1.27-5.63], P = 0.010) and malignancy (HR 3.09 [95% CI 1.03-9.26], P = 0.043). Ventricular arrhythmia free survival at 6-months was lower in the transplant and/or deceased, compared to non-deceased group (62% vs. 78%, P = 0.010), but was not independently associated with transplant and/or mortality. The risk score, MORTALITIES-VA, accurately predicted transplant and/or mortality (AUC: 0.872 [95% CI 0.810-0.934]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac transplant and/or mortality after VT ablation occurred in 21% of patients. Independent predictors included LVEF≤35%, age ≥ 65 years, renal impairment, malignancy, and amiodarone failure. The MORTALITIES-VA score may identify patients at high-risk of transplant and/or dying after VT ablation.

Comparison of the arrhythmogenic substrate for ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischemic vs non-ischemic cardiomyopathy - insights from high-density, multi-electrode catheter mapping

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the differences of arrhythmogenic substrate using high-density mapping in ventricular tachycardia (VT) patients with ischemic (ICM) vs non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).

METHODS

Data from patients presenting for VT ablation from December 2016 to December 2020 at Westmead Hospital were reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients with structural heart disease (ICM 57%, NICM 43%, mean age 66 years) having catheter ablation of scar-related VT with pre-dominant left ventricular involvement were included. ICM was associated with larger proportion of dense scar area (bipolar; 19 [12-29]% vs 6 [3-10]%, P < 0.001, unipolar; 20 [12-32]% vs 11 [7-19]%, P = 0.01) compared with NICM. However, the scar ratio (unipolar dense scar [%]/bipolar dense scar [%]) was significantly higher in NICM patients (1.2 [0.8-1.7] vs 1.7 [1.3-2.3], P = 0.003). Larger scar area in ICM was paralleled by higher proportion of complex electrograms (6 [2-13] % vs 3 [1-5] %, P = 0.01), longer and wider voltage based conducting channels, higher incidence of late potential-based conducting channels, longer VT cycle-length (399 ± 80 ms vs 359 ± 68 ms, P = 0.04) and greater maximal stimulation-QRS interval among sites with good pace-map correlation (75 [51-99]ms vs 48 [31-73]ms, P = 0.02). Ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm was more highly prevalent in ICM than NICM (50% vs 23%, P = 0.03). During the follow-up period, NICM had a significantly higher cumulative incidence for the VA recurrence than ICM (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

High-density multi-electrode catheter mapping of left ventricular arrhythmogenic substrate of NICM tends to show smaller dense scar area and higher scar ratio, compared with ICM, suggestive the extent of epicardial/intramural substrate, with paucity of substrate targets for ablation, which results in the worse outcomes with ablation.

Amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation of patients with rheumatic heart disease after valve replacement

Objectives:

To explore the efficacy of amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation for patients with rheumatic heart disease after valve replacement.

Methods:

Eighty-six patients with rheumatic heart disease who were hospitalized between June 2016 and June 2017 and developed atrial fibrillation after valvular heart valve replacement were randomly divided into a control group and an observation group, 42 cases in each group. The control group was treated with routine medical treatment, while the observation group was given amiodarone on the basis of routine treatment. The cardiac function of the two groups were observed and recorded. Postoperative atrial fibrillation conversion rate, sinus rhythm maintenance rate, intensive care unit (ICU) monitoring time and hospital stay were compared between the two groups.

Results:

Compared with the control group, the improvement of cardiac function indexes of the observation group was better, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The atrial fibrillation conversion rate and the maintenance rate of sinus rhythm of the observation group were 76.2% and 47.6% respectively, which were significantly higher than 57.1% and 33.3% of the control group; the differences had statistical significance (P<0.05). The ICU monitoring time and hospitalization time of the patients in the observation group were (1.69±0.91) d and (10.24±1.11) d respectively, which were significantly shorter than (2.83±0.95) d and (14.07±1.17) d in the control group (P<0.05); the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Amiodarone can effectively treat valve replacement associated atrial fibrillation of patients with rheumatic heart disease. It can significantly improve the heart function, prevent the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, maintain sinus rhythm after operation, and shorten the time of ICU monitoring and hospitalization.

An inappropriate pacing threshold increase after repeated electrical storm in a patient with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are capable of effectively terminating malignant ventricular arrhythmia and are the most effective way to prevent sudden cardiac death. However, some evidences demonstrated that both anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and ICD shock can also bring adverse prognosis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 66-year-old Han Chinese man with prior ICD implantation was admitted to our hospital because of frequent ICD shocks. Although intravenous amiodarone and esmolol succinate were administered daily, the patient suffered 155 episodes of VT/VF during 8 weeks after implantation. After repeated discharge of the device, the pacing threshold of the patient increased gradually. Considering the inappropriate increase of the pacing threshold, we decided to reposition the right ventricular (RV) lead with good sensing and threshold parameters confirmed. Subsequent 22 months interrogation follow-up revealed a stable lead position and electrical specifications. Furthermore, antiarrhythmic drugs were maximally increased, while ATP burst was remarkably decreased and the inappropriate ICD shock never occurred until now.

CONCLUSION

An inappropriate pacing threshold was increased secondary to repeated ICD electrical storm. A timely active lead position adjustment reduced the pacing threshold and eliminated the risk of premature battery depletion.

Beyond the Storm: Comparison of Clinical Factors, Arrhythmogenic Substrate, and Catheter Ablation Outcomes in Structural Heart Disease Patients With versus Those Without a History of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm

AIMS

Catheter ablation can be lifesaving in ventricular tachycardia (VT) storm, but the underlying substrate in patients with storm is not well characterized. We sought to compare the clinical factors, substrate, and outcomes differences in patients with sustained monomorphic VT who present for catheter ablation with VT storm versus those with a nonstorm presentation.

METHODS

Consecutive ischemic (ICM; n = 554) or nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients (NICM; n = 369) with a storm versus nonstorm presentation were studied (ICM storm 186; NICM storm 101).

RESULTS

In ICM, storm compared with nonstorm patients had significantly lower left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), greater number of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) failures, slower VTs, greater number of scarred LV segments, higher incidence of anterior, septal, and apical endocardial LV scar (all P < 0.05). However, outcomes in follow-up were similar (12-month ventricular arrhythmia [VA]-free survival: 51% vs. 52%, P = 0.6; survival free of death/transplant 75% vs. 87%, P = 0.7). In addition to the above differences, NICM storm patients were also older; however, the extent and distribution of scar was similar except for a higher incidence of lateral endocardial scar in storm patients (P = 0.05). VA-free survival (36% vs. 47%, P = 0.004) and survival free of death/transplant, however, were worse in NICM storm than nonstorm patients (72% vs. 88%, P = 0.001). NICM storm patients had worse VA-free survival than ICM storm patients.

CONCLUSION

There are differences in clinical factors and scar patterns in patients undergoing VT ablation who present with VT storm versus those with a nonstorm presentation. Clinical outcomes are worse in NICM storm patients.