Use Of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator In Patients Research Articles

An update on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines.

This review describes changes in indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation made in the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology 2002 update of the 1998 guideline for the implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices. Recent observational and clinical data support changes in the guidelines for ICD implantation to include patients with no structural heart disease and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia not amenable to other treatments; left ventricular ejection fractions of 0.30 or less at least 1 month after myocardial infarction and at least 3 months after coronary revascularization surgery (the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II); syncope of unexplained origin or a family history of unexplained sudden cardiac death in association with typical or atypical right bundle branch block and ST-segment elevations (Brugada syndrome); and syncope in the setting of advanced structural heart disease when thorough invasive and noninvasive investigations have failed to define a cause. With the completion of multiple important randomized clinical trials, the application of ICD technology continues to evolve. Indications have expanded from secondary to primary prevention. Most importantly, currently available data support the prophylactic use of ICDs in patients with coronary artery disease and poor left ventricular function. Further trial data are awaited to determine if the same benefits for survival and quality of life will be afforded to patients with nonischemic heart diseases and poor left ventricular function.

Device therapy for heart failure

Although pharmacologic therapy has made impressive advances in the past decade and is the mainstay of therapy for heart failure (HF), there is still a large unmet need, because morbidity and mortality remain unacceptably high. Implanted medical devices are gaining increasing utility in this group of patients and have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of HF. The majority of devices in clinical use or under active investigation in HF can be grouped into 1 of 4 categories: devices to monitor the HF condition, devices to treat rhythm disturbances, devices to improve the mechanical efficiency of the heart, and devices to replace part or all of the heart’s function. There are several devices either approved or under development to monitor the HF condition, ranging from interactive weight scales to implantable continuous pressure monitors. The challenge is to demonstrate that this technology can improve patient outcomes. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are used to treat heart rhythms in a broad range of patients with heart disease, but they now have a special place in HF management with the prophylactic use of ICDs in patients who have advanced systolic dysfunction. The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II study demonstrated a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality with ICDs in patients with a history of a myocardial infarction and a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <0.30. LV and multisite pacing are means of improving the mechanical efficiency of the heart. The concept is to create a more coordinated contraction of the ventricles to overcome the inefficiency associated with conduction system delays, which are common in HF. The acute hemodynamic effect can be impressive and is immediate. Several studies of intermediate duration (3 to 6 months) have consistently demonstrated that biventricular pacing improves symptoms and exercise capacity. Mechanical methods of remodeling the heart into a more efficient shape have been under scrutiny for several years. New methods of restraining the heart with prosthetic material are under investigation in humans, with encouraging pilot results. Heart replacement has been evaluated clinically with LV assist devices for several decades. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance Therapy as an Alternative in Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) study has demonstrated a proof of concept for the use of mechanical blood pumps to improve survival, functional capacity, and symptoms. Several assist devices with such features as total implantability, improved durability, and smaller size are now under study; these may further improve the outcomes of patients. One year ago, the world witnessed the first clinical use of a totally implantable total artificial heart. Although the long-term outcomes were limited, the device demonstrated an impressive ability to improve organ function and extend survival in the population facing imminent death. Further development in this field is expected. The use of devices in HF now has a strong foothold, and the potential exists for substantially greater use of a broad range of devices in the near future.

Implantable defibrillator event rates in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on Holter and a left ventricular ejection fraction below 30%

ObjectivesThis study investigated the incidence of appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) and nonsustained VT in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction below 30%, versus in patients with syncope and patients with a history of VT or VF. BackgroundTo date, only limited information is available about the prophylactic use of ICDs in patients with IDC. MethodsFrom January 1993 to July 2000, 101 patients with IDC underwent implantation of ICDs with electrogram storage capability at our institution. Patients were placed into one of three groups according to their clinical presentation: asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic nonsustained VT in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% (49 patients, prophylactic group), unexplained syncope or near syncope (26 patients, syncope group) and a history of sustained VT or VF (26 patients, VT/VF group). ResultsDuring 36 ± 22 months follow-up, 18 of 49 patients (37%) in the prophylactic group received appropriate shocks for VT or VF, compared with 8 of 26 patients (31%) in the syncope group and with 9 of 26 patients (35%) of the VT/VF group. Multivariate Cox analysis of baseline clinical variables identified left ventricular ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation and a history of sustained VT or VF as predictors for appropriate ICD interventions during follow-up. ConclusionPatients with IDC and prophylactic ICD implantation for nonsustained VT in the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% had an incidence of appropriate ICD interventions similar to that of patients with a history of syncope or sustained VT or VF. These findings indicate that ICDs may have a role in not only secondary but also primary prevention of sudden death in IDC.

Benefits of treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with stable ventricular tachycardia without cardiac arrest.

The availability of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) that are capable of antitachycardia pacing may lead to an increased use of ICDs in patients with haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia without a history of cardiac arrest. The frequency of potentially life-threatening fast ventricular tachycardias (cycle length < 250 ms) was investigated in patients who had a third generation ICD with endocardial leads implanted because they had haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia without a history of cardiac arrest. Between January 1990 and October 1993, 50 patients (age (mean (SD)) 60 (11); ejection fraction 39 (16)%; 82% with coronary artery disease and 8% with dilated cardiomyopathy) with haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia (cycle length (mean (SD)) 348 (60) ms; range 250-500 ms) and without a history of cardiac arrest were treated with third generation ICDs that were capable of antitachycardia pacing. Fast ventricular tachycardia had been induced in 14 (28%) during baseline electrophysiological study. The benefit of ICD treatment was estimated as the difference between total mortality and the occurrence of fast ventricular tachycardia that would have been fatal if it had not been terminated. During follow up of 17 (12) months, 33 patients (66%) had a total of 3861 episodes of ventricular tachycardia. 91% of these episodes were terminated by antitachycardia pacing. 11 patients (22%) had episodes of potentially life-threatening fast ventricular tachycardia and 3 of these also had inducible fast ventricular tachycardia. One patient died suddenly 27 months after implantation. The difference between survival without fast ventricular tachycardia and total mortality was 9%, 12%, 27%, and 27% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. About a fifth of patients who had been given an ICD to treat haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia and who had no history of cardiac arrest experienced fast ventricular tachycardia during follow up requiring immediate cardioversion. Prospective studies are needed to investigate whether the prognosis of patients with a history of haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia without cardiac arrest is improved by ICD therapy.