Outcomes of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention for in‐hospital ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation cardiac arrest

Abstract

This study examined outcomes of patients with sudden cardiac death attributable to primary ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) that underwent cardiac catheterization with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The decision to perform cardiac catheterization and PCI in resuscitated patients with sudden cardiac death remains controversial. Prior data suggest a potential benefit from percutaneous revascularization. All patients with an in-hospital pulseless VT or VF cardiac arrest from August 2002 to February 2008 who underwent cardiac catheterization were included. Retrospective chart review was performed to obtain clinical, neurologic, and angiographic data. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and neurologic outcome. Two thousand and thirty-four patients had in-hospital cardiac arrest, of these 116 had pulseless VT or VF and were resuscitated and 93 (80%) underwent coronary angiography. The median time to follow-up was 1.3 years (IQR: 0.5-2.9 years). Obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) was observed in 74 (79%) individuals, of whom 37 underwent PCI. Thirty-five patients with obstructive CAD (47%) died compared to 41% with nonobstructive CAD. In unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analysis PCI was not associated with lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.54, 95% CI, 0.79-3.02, P = 0.20). No significant differences were noted in neurologic status at discharge (P = 0.49). In this study, an aggressive revascularization strategy with PCI did not confer a survival advantage nor was it associated with improved neurologic outcomes. There was no suggestion of harm with PCI and further studies are necessary to identify potential subgroups that may benefit from revascularization.