Implantable defibrillators in primary prevention of genetic arrhythmias. A shocking choice?

Many previously unexplained life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) in young individuals are now recognized to be genetic in nature and are ascribed to a growing number of distinct inherited arrhythmogenic diseases. These include hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), and short QT syndrome. Because of their lower frequency compared to coronary disease, risk factors for SCD are not very precise in patients with inherited arrhythmogenic diseases. As randomized studies are generally non-feasible and may even be ethically unjustifiable, especially in the presence of effective therapies, the risk assessment of malignant arrhythmic events such as SCD, cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF), appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions, or ICD therapy on fast VT/VF to guide ICD implantation is based on observational data and expert consensus. In this document, we review risk factors for SCD and indications for ICD implantation and additional therapies. What emerges is that, allowing for some important differences between cardiomyopathies and channelopathies, there is a growing and disquieting trend to create, and then use, semi-automated systems (risk scores, risk calculators, and, to some extent, even guidelines) which then dictate therapeutic choices. Their common denominator is a tendency to favour ICD implantation, sometime with reason, sometime without it. This contrasts with the time-honoured approach of selecting, among the available therapies, the best option (ICDs included) based on the clinical judgement for the specific patient and after having assessed the protection provided by optimal medical treatment.

Endocardial Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Septal Myectomy in Patients With Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Septal myectomy (SM) has been the gold standard therapy for most patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Endocardial radiofrequency ablation of septal hypertrophy (ERASH) is a novel treatment for septal reduction. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety between two treatment strategies.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify relevant studies published up to March 2021. Random-effect models were used to calculate standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient (LVOTG) and septal thickness.

Results

Twenty-five studies are included in this review, eighteen studies for SM and seven studies for ERASH. During follow-up, there were significant reductions of the mean resting LVOTG in adults (SM groups: SMD = −3.03, 95% CI [−3.62 to −2.44]; ERASH groups: SMD = −1.95, 95% CI [−2.45 to −1.45]) and children (SM groups: SMD = −2.67, 95% CI [−3.21 to −2.12]; ERASH groups: SMD= −2.37, 95% CI [−3.02 to −1.73]) after the septal reduction therapies. For adults, SM groups contributed to more obvious reduction than ERASH groups in interventricular septal thickness (SM groups: SMD = −1.82, 95% CI [−2.29 to −1.34]; ERASH groups: SMD = −0.43, 95% CI [−1.00 to 0.13]). The improvement of the New York Heart Association class was similar in the two groups (SM groups: 46.4%; ERASH groups: 46.7%). The periprocedural mortality in SM and ERASH were 1.1 and 1.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review suggests that SM is superior to ERASH in the treatment of HOCM. But for the patients who are at risk for open cardiac surgeries or prefer a less invasive approach, ERASH might be an optional approach.