Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Implantation For Primary Prevention Research Articles

Comparison of N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Versus Electrophysiologic Study for Predicting Future Outcomes in Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator After Myocardial Infarction

The aim of the study was to examine the predictive value of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) versus electrophysiologic study in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) after myocardial infarction (MI). We prospectively studied 99 consecutive patients with a history of MI who underwent ICD implantation for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. An electrophysiologic study was performed in all patients. Venous blood samples for NT-pro-BNP measurement were obtained at the beginning of the study. The primary end point was ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) and the secondary end point was a composite of death, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, NT-pro-BNP level at or greater than median (497 ng/L) was the only significant predictor for VT/VF occurrence (p = 0.047). Along with amiodarone use (p = 0.001), NT-pro-BNP levels higher than median were also associated with a higher risk of composite clinical events (p = 0.036). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with NT-pro-BNP level at or greater than median had a higher risk of experiencing VT/VF and composite clinical events than patients with NT-pro-BNP levels less than median (log-rank p <0.05). In conclusion, assay of NT-pro-BNP, which is easy to perform and widely available, is superior to electrophysiologic study for prediction of future outcomes in predominantly secondary prophylactic ICD recipients after MI. In the era of primary prophylactic ICD implantation without preimplantation electrophysiologic study, higher NT-pro-BNP levels might help to improve risk-adjusted concomitant antiarrhythmic therapy and device selection.

Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia

Sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) is an important cause of morbidity and sudden death in patients with heart disease.1 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) terminate VT episodes, reducing the risk of sudden death. Recurrent VT develops in 40% to 60% of patients who receive an ICD after an episode of spontaneous sustained VT. A first episode of VT occurs in ≈20% of patients within 3 to 5 years after ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death in high-risk groups.2–4 ICD shocks reduce quality of life and are associated with an increased risk of death.2–4 Antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone or sotalol reduces VT episodes but with disappointing incidence of side effects and efficacy.2 Catheter ablation is useful for reducing VT episodes and can be life-saving when VT is incessant.1,5,6 Idiopathic VTs occur in patients without structural heart disease and rarely cause sudden death. Electrophysiological study with catheter ablation is often warranted to confirm the diagnosis, to provide further evidence for the absence of ventricular scar or other disease, and often to cure the arrhythmia. Ablation is also an option for symptomatic nonsustained VT and frequent ventricular ectopy in these patients.1 The appearance of the VT on ECG often suggests its likely cause and associated heart disease (Figure 1). Monomorphic VT has the same QRS complex from beat to beat, indicating repetitive ventricular activation from a structural substrate or focus that can be targeted for ablation. Most are due to reentry through regions of ventricular scar.7 Figure 1. ECG types of VT and most common causes are shown with characteristic ECG features of selected VTs. LBBB indicates left bundle-branch block; LVOT, LV outflow tract; RBBB, right bundle-branch block; L, left; and R, right. Polymorphic VTs have a changing ventricular activation sequence that can be due to …

Poor Prognosis for Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Despite ICD Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Sudden Death

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been independently associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. Little is known about the benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy for prevention of sudden death in this large, high-risk population. We sought to evaluate the impact of CKD on survival in patients who received an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death. In this retrospective study of patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death, patients were stratified by CKD, defined as serum creatinine > or = 2 mg/dL or dialysis use. Primary endpoint was mortality. CKD was identified in 35 of 229 patients (15.3%). There were 33 deaths during a follow-up period of 18.0 +/- 15.2 months: 17 of 35 CKD patients and 16 of 194 patients without CKD (48.6% vs 8.2%, P < 0.00001 by log-rank). One-year survival for patients with and without CKD was 61.2% and 96.3%, respectively. Cox regression analysis controlling for age, sex, comorbidities, ejection fraction, and medications proved CKD to be the strongest independent predictor of death (hazard ratio 10.5; 95% confidence interval 4.8-23.1; P = 0.0001). This risk was dependant on severity of CKD; a 10 mL/min reduction in creatinine clearance was associated with a 55% increase in hazard of death (P < 0.0001). In patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, CKD significantly reduced long-term survival. This poor prognosis may limit the impact of primary prevention ICD therapy in this patient population.

Smokers are at markedly increased risk of appropriate defibrillator shocks in a primary prevention population

Cigarette smoking is a known risk factor for sudden cardiac death (SCD). It is unknown whether smoking status affects implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. The primary end point was appropriate ICD therapy according to smoking status. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had an abnormal response to programmed ventricular stimulation performed for nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in the setting of ischemic cardiomyopathy between January 1999 and December 2003. Among the 105 patients, 6 (37.5%) of 16 current smokers, 14 (25.9%) of 54 former smokers, and 2 (5.7%) of 35 of never smokers received an appropriate ICD therapy (P = .02). Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival free of appropriate ICD therapy comparing never smokers with both current smokers (P = .002) and former smokers (P = .01) demonstrated statistically significant differences by log rank over a mean follow-up of 21.8 +/- 13.7 months. Cox regression analysis found that current smoking was associated with an increased risk of appropriate therapy (hazard ratio 7.36; 95% confidence interval 1.42-38.10; P = .02) as was former smoking (hazard ratio 5.42; 95% confidence interval 1.20-24.47; P = .03). There was no difference in inappropriate therapy between groups (P = .12). Cigarette smoking is an independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapy in a primary prevention population. While outcomes differences among current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers are demonstrable, the effect of smoking cessation on ICD therapy requires further study.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator events in patients with asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia: is device implantation justified?

Primary prevention trials have demonstrated that patients with coronary disease, reduced left ventricular function, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) have improved survival with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, presumably secondary to effective termination of life-threatening arrhythmias. However, stored intracardiac electrograms were not always available and specific arrhythmias leading to ICD therapy were not always known. We examined the occurrence of ICD events in 51 consecutive patients who match the described patient profile to determine the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy. ICD detections were noted in 18 (35%) patients during a median follow-up period of 13.1 months. Appropriate therapy for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurred in 11 (22%) patients, with appropriate shocks in 8 (16%) patients and appropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in 4 (8%) patients. The time to first appropriate therapy occurred at a mean of 17 +/- 12 months (median 18 months, range 3-36 months). Inappropriate therapy occurred in 5 (10%) patients with inappropriate shocks in 4 patients and inappropriate ATP in 2 patients. Inappropriate therapy was delivered for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVAs) in 4 patients and for T wave oversensing in 1 patient. The reason for shock therapy was unknown in 1 patient (2%) due to ICD malfunction. The mean arrhythmia rate leading to appropriate therapy for VT/VF was 232 +/- 72 beats/min (range 181-400 beats/min), and the mean rate leading to inappropriate therapy for SVT was 168 +/- 10 beats/min (range 160-180 beats/min). Patients with coronary disease and asymptomatic NSVT commonly receive appropriate defibrillator therapy. These results support the need for ICD implantation for primary prevention, with attention to careful programming of the detection rate to prevent inappropriate therapy.