Comparing clinical performance of current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation recommendations in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

AIMS

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Four implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recommendation algorithms are available The International Task Force Consensus ('ITFC'), an ITFC modification by Orgeron et al. ('mITFC'), the AHA/HRS/ACC guideline for VA management ('AHA'), and the HRS expert consensus statement ('HRS'). This study aims to validate and compare the performance of these algorithms in ARVC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We classified 617 definite ARVC patients (38.5 ± 15.1 years, 52.4% male, 39.2% prior sustained VA) according to four algorithms. Clinical performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, ROC-analysis, and decision curve analysis for any sustained VA and for fast VA (>250 b.p.m.). During 6.4 [2.8-11.5] years follow-up, 282 (45.7%) patients experienced any sustained VA, and 63 (10.2%) fast VA. For any sustained VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (94.0-97.8% vs. 76.7-83.5%), but lower specificity (15.9-32.0% vs. 42.7%-60.1%). Similarly, for fast VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (95.2-97.1% vs. 76.7-78.4%) but lower specificity (42.7-43.1 vs. 76.7-78.4%). Decision curve analysis showed ITFC and mITFC to be superior for a 5-year sustained VA risk ICD indication threshold between 5-25% or 2-9% for fast VA.

CONCLUSION

The ITFC and mITFC provide the highest protection rates, whereas AHA and HRS decrease unnecessary ICD placements. ITFC or mITFC should be used if we consider the 5-year threshold for ICD indication to lie within 5-25% for sustained VA or 2-9% for fast VA. These data will inform decision-making for ICD placement in ARVC.

Impact of Exercise Restriction on Arrhythmic Risk Among Patients With Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown a close link between exercise and development of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. How much exercise restriction reduces ventricular arrhythmia (VA), how genotype modifies its benefit, and whether it reduces risk sufficiently to defer implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

=0.06 for interaction); however, 58% (18/31) of athletes who reduced exercise dose by >80% still experienced VA.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise restriction should be recommended to all arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patients with ICDs. Patients who are "gene-elusive" and those with primary-prevention devices may particularly benefit. Exercise reduction is unlikely to reduce arrhythmia sufficiently in high-risk patients to alter decision-making regarding ICD implantation.