Secondary Prevention Of Sudden Cardiac Death Research Articles

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

A Latin American Registry of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: The ICD‐LABOR Study

Despite the progress that has been reached in emergency medical systems and resuscitation, sudden cardiac death (SCD) continues to be the major cause of the death, and remains a significant public health problem. In this publication we are reporting our Latin American experience in the secondary prevention of SCD, by means of an ongoing registry involving seven Latin American countries and 770 patients. Every individual within the present registry to date has presented with antecedents of aborted sudden death or cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Patients included have fulfilled the Class I indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and they were implanted with a Biotronik ICD (all models). The study was not sponsored by Biotronik, nor did they have access to the data. A specific protocol was designed for implantation and follow-up of patients. The database was completely registered through the Internet and a personal password was assigned to each group of investigators. The primary end point was death from all causes. Secondary end points were SCD and death due to congestive heart failure (CHF). The etiology of cardiac disease was found to be predominantly coronary artery disease (CAD) 39.7% (306 patients), followed by Chagas disease (ChD), 26.1% (201 patients), and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), 17% (131 patients). Any remaining pathologies were included as miscellaneous 13.2% (101 patients). In 31 patients (4%) the etiology was unknown. The age did not differ within the principal pathologies, but was significantly older than the miscellaneous group (62.0 +/- 11.3 years vs 48.2 +/- 18.9 years, P < 0.0001). The follow-up period was 27 +/- 25 months (1-113 months) for the whole group. The mortality in functional classes I-II was significantly lower than mortality for functional classes III-IV (relative risk 1.46, CI 95%, P < 0.0001). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for the whole group was 37.7 +/- 14.3%. Male LVEF was 36.1 +/- 14.1% and female LVEF was 42.2 +/- 13.8% P < 0.0001. During the follow-up period, 130 deaths were reported (global mortality 16.9 +/- 9.7%), out of which 84 (64.6%) were attributed to cardiac causes (10.9 +/- 5.1% of the total population). The annual adjusted cardiac mortality was 5.2 +/- 1.72% (range 3.5-7.0%). Among cardiac deaths the most common cause was progressive heart failure, 48 patients (57%) including 3 patients with pulmonary embolism. The second main cause of cardiac death was SCD, 36 patients (43%), including 4 patients with electrical storm and 3 patients with electromechanical dissociation after multiple shock therapy treatments. Despite the differences in terms of pathologies between the ICD-LABOR (Latin American bioelectronic ongoing registry) and randomized ICD trials, a parallel evolution in all cause mortality and cardiac mortality was observed. Independent risk factors for mortality included age >70 years, male gender, NYHA III/IV, and ejection fraction <0.30. The etiology of heart disease (Chagas vs Coronary Disease) was not found to be a risk factor.

Implantable defibrillators: from the adult cardiac to the grown up congenital heart disease patient

The automatic implantable defibrillators (AID) are increasingly used for both secondary and primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high risk adult cardiac patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (SVA) and/or significant ventricular dysfunction. The corresponding experience with AIDs in pediatric and young adult population is limited suggesting at least the same benefit as in the adult population. With the growing number of adults with previous corrective surgery of complex congenital heart disease (CHD), a need to address the risk stratification process for SCD among these patients is becoming increasingly important. For the present time, the AIDs have been mostly utilized for the secondary prevention of SCD in those postoperative CHD adult patients with a history of SVA. Currently available data on how to assess the risk for SCD among such patients as well as implications about the potential to prevent SCD with an earlier use of AID in this growing population are presented and discussed.

Sudden cardiac death.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a leading cause of death in the United States. This phenomenon is associated with coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, nonischemic cardiomyopathies, congenital heart disease, primary electrical abnormalities, autonomic nervous system abnormalities, and other less common disorders. Evaluation and management of patients at risk for SCD (primary prevention) and of patients who have survived at least 1 episode of SCD (secondary prevention) have evolved in recent years because clinical trials have shown consistent benefit from implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in appropriately selected patients. An evidence-based approach to primary and secondary prevention of SCD is presented.

Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a review of current evidence.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is indicated for patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The high relative cost of therapy with the ICD versus antiarrhythmic drugs has raised questions regarding its cost-effectiveness. To address these questions, we review the literature on ICD cost-effectiveness. MEDLINE and other databases were searched for articles published since 1980 reporting original data on the cost-effectiveness of ICD versus drug therapy for patients at risk for SCD. Data on costs and life-years were abstracted and studies grouped into decision analysis models and trial-based analyses. Cost-effectiveness ratios were inflated to 2002 US dollars. Thirteen economic studies were included in this review: 6 decision-analytic models, 4 economic analysis alongside randomized controlled trials, and 1 observational study. Two additional studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICDs stratified by mortality risk. Studies varied in time horizon, and in all but one study ICD therapy was more costly than drug therapy. Early models assumed larger survival benefits than were observed in subsequent trials; therefore, ICDs appeared to be more cost-effective (i.e., US dollars 28000-US dollars 60000 per life-year gained). Three large clinical trial-based studies estimated that the cost per life-year gained was between US dollars 30181 and US dollars 185000. Stratified analyses show that patients at higher risk for mortality due to structural heart disease (e.g., left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) benefit more from ICD therapy, resulting in lower cost-effectiveness ratios. ICD therapy continues to evolve with changing methods of implantation and improving technology. Current evidence suggests that ICDs may be a cost-effective option in patients at high risk for VT/VF. The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for primary and secondary prevention of SCD depends upon patient characteristics that influence their prior risk of mortality. Further research on patient selection criteria and the measurement of health-related quality of life is required.

Role of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death: an evidence-based review.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for more than half of all cardiac deaths occurring each year in the United States. Although it has several causes, patients at greatest risk are those with coronary artery disease and impaired left ventricular function, heart failure secondary to ischemia or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, and survivors of cardiac arrest. The presence of asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, positive signal-averaged electrocardiogram (ECG), low heart rate variability index, or inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation increases the risk. In primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease, beta-blockers reduced both total mortality and SCD, whereas class I antiarrhythmic drugs, especially class IC, increased mortality. Among class III agents, d,l-sotalol and dofetilide have a neutral effect on mortality, whereas d-sotalol increases mortality. Amiodarone has a neutral effect on total and cardiac mortality but does reduce the risk of arrhythmic death and cardiac arrest. Three primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease were conducted with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Patients with low ejection fractions (EFs), asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, and inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation had significant reductions in total, cardiac, and arrhythmic death with ICDs compared with either no drug therapy or conventional antiarrhythmic agents. The ICDs did not reduce mortality in patients with low EFs and a positive signal-averaged ECG undergoing coronary bypass graft. In those with heart failure, beta-blockers reduced total and SCD mortality, but dofetilide and amiodarone had a neutral effect on mortality. In the secondary prevention of SCD, antiarrhythmic drugs alone generally are not thought to improve survival. In three trials in patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, or survivors of SCD, ICDs reduced cardiac and arrhythmic mortality. Total mortality, however, was significantly reduced in only one of these trials. The role of antiarrhythmic drugs in secondary prevention of SCD is limited to patients in whom ICD is inappropriate or in combination with ICD. Antiarrhythmics can be given selectively with ICDs to decrease episodes of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation to reduce ICD discharges, to suppress episodes of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia that trigger ICD discharges, to slow the rate of ventricular tachycardia to increase hemodynamic stability, to allow effective antitachycardia pacing, or to suppress supraventricular arrhythmias.

Is primary antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular arrhythmias obsolete?

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a major public health threat. Patients with aborted SCD have a high incidence of recurrent life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drug approaches dominated early attempts to prevent SCD; however, several trials with sotalol and amiodarone revealed an unacceptably high rate of recurrent arrhythmic events. With the advent of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), the primary role of antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the secondary prevention of SCD has been called into question. Two recently completed trials, the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), confirm the superiority of the ICD over the best medical therapy for saving lives.