Search

The RAID (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator) randomized placebo-controlled trial showed that ranolazine treatment was associated with reduction in recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) requiring appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy.This study aimed to identify groups of patients in whom ranolazine treatment would result in the highest reduction of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) burden.Andersen-Gill analyses were performed to identify variables associated with risk for VTA burden among 1,012 patients enrolled in RAID. The primary endpoint was VTA burden defined as VTA episodes requiring appropriate treatment.Multivariate analysis identified 7 factors associated with increased VTA burden: history of VTA, age ≥65 years, New York Heart Association functional class ≥III, QRS complex (≥130 ms), low ejection fraction (30%), atrial fibrillation (AF), and concomitant antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. The effect of ranolazine on VTA burden was seen among patients without concomitant AAD therapy (HR [HR]: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.55-0.84; P 0.001), whereas no effect was seen among those who are concomitantly treated with other AADs (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.90-1.96; P = 0.16); P = 0.003 for interaction. In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) ICDs, ranolazine treatment was associated with a 36% risk reduction for VTA recurrence (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.47-0.86; P 0.001), whereas among patients with ICDs without CRT no significant effect was noted (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P = 0.57); P = 0.047 for interaction.In patients with high risk for VTA, ranolazine is effective in reducing VTA burden, with significantly greater effect in CRT-treated patients, those without AF, and those not treated with concomitant AADs. In patients already on AADs or those with AF, the addition of ranolazine did not affect VTA burden. (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Trial [RAID]; NCT01215253).

This report summarizes the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of intracardiac ultrasound (ICUS) and local electrographic-guided pulmonary vein (PV)-left atrial disconnection, including the isolation of common PV trunks accomplished in 170 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A left common PV was found in 43% of patients with AF. During a follow-up of 549 +/- 330 days after ablation, the AF-free survival rate was 80% and comparable in paroxysmal and persistent AF. PV stenosis was detected in only 1 asymptomatic patient, who required no intervention.

CONTEXT: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. DESIGN: The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. INTERVENTIONS: All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. RESULTS: One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. CONCLUSION: For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.