Search

This article discusses the challenges and disparities in cardiovascular care in Australia and New Zealand. Despite being high-income countries, both nations face a significant burden of cardiovascular disease, particularly in rural and remote areas where access to specialized care is limited. Indigenous populations in both countries also experience higher rates of cardiovascular conditions and mortality. The article highlights the need for innovative solutions, such as telehealth and remote cardiac care services, to address these challenges. Additionally, it discusses issues of underrepresentation of women and Indigenous peoples in the cardiology workforce and the importance of promoting diversity to reduce health inequities. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the pathogenesis, incidence and prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) early after myocardial infarction (MI). Topics discussed include primary intervention of SCD using an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), risk stratification tests used for identifying high risk patients, and electrophysiology studies for guiding ICD therapies.

Background--A negative electrophysiology study (EPS) may delineate a subgroup of patients with severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) whose care can be safely managed long-term without an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Methods and Results--Consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment--elevation myocardial infarction underwent early (median 4 days) LVEF assessment. Patients with LVEF ≤40% underwent EPS. A prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted for a positive (inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia) but not a negative (no inducible ventricular tachycardia or inducible ventricular fibrillation/flutter) EPS result. Patients who would have become eligible for a late primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with LVEF ≤30% or ≤35% with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure were included and analyzed according to EPS result. Patients with LVEF >40%, ineligible for EPS, were followed up as control subjects (n=1286). The primary end point was survival free of death or arrhythmia (resuscitated cardiac arrest or sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation). EPS performed in 128 patients with LVEF ≤30% or with LVEF ≤35% and heart failure was negative in 63% (n=80) and positive in 37% (n=48). Implantable-cardioverter defibrillators were implanted in <0.1%, 4%, and 90% of control, EPS-negative, and EPS-positive patients, respectively. The distribution of time to death or arrhythmia was comparable in control patients and EPS-negative patients with LVEF ≤30% or with LVEF ≤35% and heart failure (P=0.738), who both differed significantly from EPS-positive patients (P<0.001). At 3 years, 91.8±3.2%, 93.4±1.0%, and 62.7±7.5% of control, EPS-negative, and EPS-positive patients were tree of death or arrhythmia, respectively. Conclusions--Revascularized patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with severely impaired left ventricular function but no inducible ventricular tachycardia have a favorable long-term prognosis without the protection of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Methods to identify high-risk patients and timing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy after ST-elevation myocardial infarction need further optimization., Methods and Results: We evaluated outcomes of early ICD implantation in patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia. Consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction underwent early left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment. Patients with LVEF >40% were discharged (group 1); patients with LVEF < or =40% underwent risk stratification with electrophysiological study. If no ventricular tachycardia was induced, patients were discharged without an ICD (group 2). If sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (> or =200-ms cycle length) was induced, an ICD was implanted before discharge (group 3). Follow-up was obtained up to 30 months in all patients and up to 48 months in a subgroup of patients with LVEF < or =30% without an ICD. The primary end point was total mortality. Group 1 (n=574) had a mean LVEF of 54+/-8%; group 2 (n=83), 32+/-6%; and group 3 (n=32), 29+/-7%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, there was no significant difference in survival between the 3 groups (P=0.879), with mortality rates of 3%, 3%, and 6% for groups 1 through 3, respectively. In the subgroup of group 2 patients with LVEF < or =30% and no ICD (n=25), there was 9% mortality at a median follow-up of 25 months. In group 3, 19% had spontaneous ICD activation resulting from ventricular tachycardia., Conclusions: Early ICD implantation limited to patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia enables a low overall mortality in patients with impaired LVEF after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.