Search

Background: Patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) may be at lower risk for ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). In addition, DCM has been identified as a predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator over CRT, according to underlying heart disease, in a large study group of primary prevention patients with heart failure.Methods: This was an observational, multicenter, European cohort study of 5,307 consecutive patients with DCM or ICM, no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, who underwent CRT implantation with (n = 4,037) or without (n = 1,270) a defibrillator. Propensity-score and cause-of-death analyses were used to compare outcomes.Results: After a mean follow-up period of 41.4 ± 29.0 months, patients with ICM had better survival when receiving CRT with a defibrillator compared with those who received CRT without a defibrillator (hazard ratio for mortality adjusted on propensity score and all mortality predictors: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.92; p = 0.005), whereas in patients with DCM, no such difference was observed (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.16; p = 0.49). Compared with recipients of defibrillators, the excess mortality in patients who did not receive defibrillators was related to sudden cardiac death in 8.0% among those with ICM but in only 0.4% of those with DCM.Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure with indications for CRT, those with DCM may not benefit from additional primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, as opposed to those with ICM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard of care for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high-risk patients. For primary prevention of SCD, in patients with ischaemic heart disease, there is more robust data on the effect of ICD therapy compared with patients with non-ischaemic heart disease, but current real-life practice may differ substantially. The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association survey was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding implantation of ICD for primary prevention among European countries in patients with non-ischaemic and ischaemic heart disease. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate the impact of the results of the recently published DANISH trial on clinical practice among European countries. In total, 48 centres from 17 different countries responded to the questionnaire. The majority did not implant ICD for primary prevention on a regular basis in patients with non-ischaemic heart disease despite current guidelines. Also, centres have changed their indications after the recent report on the efficacy of ICD in these patients. In patients with ischaemic heart disease, the guidelines for primary prevention ICD were followed on a regular basis, and no relevant change in indications were reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Catheter Ablation of Stable Ventricular Tachycardia Background In the Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Coronary Heart Disease (VTACH) study, an intention-to-treat approach was used and may have diminished the observed degree of treatment effect. We present a subanalysis of the VTACH study by treatment actually received. Methods and Results The VTACH study was a prospective, open, randomized controlled trial, undertaken in 16 European centers, comparing defibrillator implantation with and without ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation in patients with stable VT, previous myocardial infarction, and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction. Of the 52 patients in the ablation group, 7 (13%) did not receive VT ablation and 19% of patients assigned to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) only treatment group crossed over and had an ablation. The primary endpoint (first recurrence of any documented VT or ventricular fibrillation [VF]) was reached after a median of 19.5 months in the ablation group and 5.9 months in the ICD only group (P = 0.01). Overall, 685 VT/VF events occurred per year of follow-up in 22 patients of the ablation group and 4,986 events in 43 patients of the control group (P = 0.024). In the ICD only group, median numbers of VT/VF episodes were 25 (IQR 5.8-45.3) and 1.5 (IQR 0-24.8) per patient and year before and after crossover (n = 12), respectively. Conclusion On-treatment analysis of the VTACH study emphasizes the effectiveness of VT ablation in patients receiving ICD treatment because of monomorphic VT post myocardial infarction. VT ablation clearly prolonged time to recurrence of VT/VF episodes and markedly decreased VT/VF burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical ventricular remodeling (SVR) is an invasive method of treating patients with heart failure who also have ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced ejection fraction (EF). Introduced in the mid-1980s, this technique was met with varying success and relatively high morbidity and mortality despite its theoretical benefits. The development of the BioVentrix Revivent TC System (BioVentrix, Inc., San Ramon, CA) as a less-invasive method of surgical ventricular remodeling has created a novel, multidisciplinary approach to heart failure management, which necessitates multiple subspecialties. Currently in the trial phase in the United States and widely used in Europe, the positive results to date appear promising for the rapid adoption of this procedure. For the cardiac anesthesiologist, a thorough understanding of the patient population, procedural goals, and intraoperative management is essential. This overview discusses the advancement in surgical ventricular remodeling, the pertinent surgical steps of the BioVentrix Revivent TC System placement, and specific anesthetic considerations for this novel procedure., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/objective: We compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients randomized to escalated therapy and those randomized to ablation for ventricular tachycardia in the VANISH trial., Methods: HRQoL was assessed among VANISH patients at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. Four validated instruments were used: the SF-36, the implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) Concerns questionnaire (ICDC), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). Linear mixed-effects modeling was used for repeated measures with SF-36, HADS, ICDC, and EQ-5D as dependent variables. In a second model, treatment was subdivided by amiodarone use prior to enrollment., Results: HRQoL did not differ significantly between those randomized to ablation or escalated therapy. On subgroup analysis, improvement in SF-36 measures was seen at 6 months in the ablation group for social functioning (63.5-69.3, P = 0.03) and energy/fatigue (43.0-47.9, P = 0.01). ICDC measures showed a reduction in ICD concern in the ablation group at 6 months (10.4-8.7, P = 0.01) and a reduction in ICD concern in the escalated therapy group at 6 months (10.9-9.4, P = 0.04). EQ-5D measures showed a significant improvement in overall health in ablation patients at 6 months (63.4-67.3, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Patients in the VANISH study randomized to ablation did not have a significant change in quality of life outcomes compared to those randomized to escalated therapy. Some subgroup findings were significant, as those randomized to ablation showed persistent improvement in SF-36 energy/fatigue and ICD concern, and transient improvement in SF-36 social functioning and EQ-5D overall health., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: The MADIT-RIT trial demonstrated reduction of inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapies and mortality by high-rate cut-off and 60-second-delayed VT therapy ICD programming in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD indication. The aim of this analysis was to study effects of MADIT-RIT ICD programming in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy., Methods and Results: First and total occurrences of both inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapies were analyzed by multivariate Cox models in 791 (53%) patients with ischemic and 707 (47%) patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy had similar incidence of first inappropriate (9% and 11%, P = 0.21) and first appropriate ICD therapy (11.6% and 14.1%, P = 0.15). Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy had higher mortality rate (6.1% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.01). MADIT-RIT high-rate cut-off (arm B) and delayed VT therapy ICD programming (arm C) compared with conventional (arm A) ICD programming were associated with a significant risk reduction of first inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapy in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR range 0.11-0.34, P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Occurrence of total inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapies was significantly reduced by high-rate cut-off ICD programming and delayed VT therapy ICD programming in both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients., Conclusion: High-rate cut-off and delayed VT therapy ICD programming are associated with significant reduction in first and total inappropriate and appropriate ICD therapy in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)