Routine programmed electrical stimulation in survivors of acute myocardial infarction for prediction of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up: Results, optimal stimulation protocol and cost-effective screening

Bourke, John; Richards, David; Ross, David L.; Wallace, Elizabeth; McGuire, Mark A.; Uther, John B.

doi:10.1016/0735-1097(91)90802-g

Cited by 147 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously, inducible MVT during EPS has been shown to be highly predictive of both sudden death as well as total mortality [22,41]. Our data provide a confirmation of the link between BZ quantification and arrhythmias in a human cohort.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

A comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging peri-infarct border zone quantification strategies for the prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmia inducibility

Rubenstein¹,

Lee²,

Wu³

et al. 2013

Cardiol J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

A comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging peri-infarct border zone quantification strategies for the prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmia inducibility

Rubenstein¹,

Lee²,

Wu³

et al. 2013

Cardiol J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19,25 We have demonstrated previously that a VT induction protocol that contains 4 extrastimuli, with inducible monomorphic VT cycle length >200 ms classified as a positive result, best identifies nearly all patients at high risk of arrhythmia. 12,[19][20][21][22]26,27 The present study, which used such a VT induction protocol, strongly suggests that patients with a negative EPS have very low rates of death or arrhythmia despite having severe LV dysfunction and no ICD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The predictive value of this approach has been discussed in detail previously. [17][18][19][20][21][22] Predischarge ICD implantation was recommended for EPS-positive patients. EPS-negative patients were discharged without an ICD and according to study protocol did not undergo ICD implantation >40 days after MI irrespective of persistent LV dysfunction.…”

Section: Electrophysiological Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Arrhythmia-Free Survival in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and No Inducible Ventricular Tachycardia After Myocardial Infarction

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I mpaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is one of the strongest predictors of death or arrhythmia postmyocardial infarction (MI). Randomized trials have demonstrated that post-MI patients with impaired LVEF derive a mortality benefit with implantation of a prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD).1,2 This mortality benefit is seen only in the chronic stage, with no randomized trial yet showing a benefit of early post-MI (within 40 days) ICD implantation.3,4 Current guidelines therefore limit prophylactic ICDs to patients who are >40 days post-MI with either LVEF ≤30% or LVEF ≤35% in the presence of New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure (HF).5 However, this risk-stratification method for prevention of SCD is limited by the poor specificity of impaired LVEF for arrhythmic versus nonarrhythmic cardiac death. 6 In addition, although the rate of SCD has declined in the era of early revascularization for MI, it remains concerningly elevated in the first 40 days.7-9 Inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) at electrophysiological study (EPS) demonstrates the presence of a substrate for reentrant tachyarrhythmia and consistently predicts arrhythmia in observational and randomized studies. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] The potential utility of EPS to guide early ICD implantation after MI has been demonstrated. 17,18Background-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-segmentelevation 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 cardioverterdefibrillator 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 fai...

show abstract

“…74,[80][81][82][83] A negative result obtained with such a PVS protocol implies a low rate of death or arrhythmia, even in the presence of severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤35%).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sudden Cardiac Death Early After Myocardial Infarction

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of SCD primary prevention early after MI remains unresolved. The focus is now firmly centered on the elucidation of risk stratification tests that effectively select patients at high risk of SCD who benefit from early ICD implantation. Zaman and Kovoor Primary Prevention of SCD Early After MI 2429A summary of major risk stratification tests currently used to identify patients at high risk of SCD is given in Table 2. LV DysfunctionImpaired LVEF, one of the most powerful predictors of survival, 64 has been shown to identify patients who derive a mortality benefit from an ICD when implanted predominantly in the remote period after MI. 16,65 However, there are major concerns with the use of LVEF alone as a risk stratifier to guide ICD implantation. One such concern is the low specificity of LVEF for selecting patients who experience arrhythmic versus nonarrhythmic death. In the MADIT II trial, the use of LVEF ≤30% alone to stratify patients for an ICD resulted in relatively small absolute improvement in mortality with low therapeutic efficiency (15-17 defibrillators per life saved). 66 Another concern is the sensitivity of LVEF, given that a large proportion of SCDs still occur in patients with preserved LV function. VALIANT demonstrated that, although the risk of SCD is greatest in patients with severe dysfunction (LVEF ≤30%), almost half of all sudden deaths occur in patients with a higher ejection fraction (LVEF, 31%-40%). 5 The use of LVEF as a risk stratification tool has been tested in the early post-MI stage in the DINAMIT and IRIS trials, which selected patients with LVEF ≤35% and ≤40%, respectively, and failed to show a benefit of early ICD implantation. 12,17 The major limitation with the use of an early LVEF cutoff is the phenomenon of myocardial stunning with variable and unpredictable recovery of LV function after MI. This is especially relevant in the contemporary era of primary PCI for STEMI. Of STEMI patients with LVEF ≤40% at day 3, 24% will improve to have an LVEF >40% at 6 months with a mean 6% relative improvement. 67 Hence, although LV function will invariably be incorporated into risk stratification models for the prevention of SCD, it is clear that other tests are required to adequately select high-risk patients early after MI. RV DysfunctionAlthough impaired LV function has been studied extensively as a predictor of mortality and arrhythmic death, RV dysfunction has been largely overlooked. We know from the VALIANT study that almost 50% of arrhythmic deaths occur in patients with a preserved LVEF.5 RV involvement in inferior MI has been shown to be a predictor of morbidity and mortality, with a higher rate of serious arrhythmias in patients with inferior MI and RV dysfunction. 68,69 In addition, RV dysfunction has been correlated with increased inducibility of VT at EPS. 70 Although there is no current evidence to support the role of early RV assessment to guide ICD implantation, these findings highlight the inadequacy of LVEF alone as a risk stratification tool for the prevention...

show abstract

Routine programmed electrical stimulation in survivors of acute myocardial infarction for prediction of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias during follow-up: Results, optimal stimulation protocol and cost-effective screening

Cited by 147 publications

References 29 publications

A comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging peri-infarct border zone quantification strategies for the prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmia inducibility

A comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging peri-infarct border zone quantification strategies for the prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmia inducibility

Long-Term Arrhythmia-Free Survival in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and No Inducible Ventricular Tachycardia After Myocardial Infarction

Sudden Cardiac Death Early After Myocardial Infarction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About