Pelicano Nuno, Oliveira Mário, Da Silva Nogueira, Antunes Eduardo, Santos Sofia, Conceição José Manuel, Roquette José, Quininha Jorge
Serviço de Cardiologia, Hospital de Santa Marta, Lisboa, Portugal.
Rev Port Cardiol. 2005 Apr;24(4):487-98.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is accepted as an important prognostic marker in patients (pts) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). The impact of this therapeutic approach in the survival of pts with life-threatening arrhythmias and severe left ventricular dysfunction remains a matter of discussion.
To evaluate the long-term clinical implications of severe left ventricular dysfunction in pts with an ICD implanted for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SD).
Out of 70 pts undergoing ICD implantation in our institution over four consecutive years, we studied 24 pts with LVEF <35% and a post-ICD follow-up of >12 months (87.5% male; age 62.79 years). The index arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia in 19 cases and SD with ventricular fibrillation in 5 cases. The underlying disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=19), dilated cardiomyopathy (n=4) and hypertensive heart disease (n=1). Mean LVEF at the time of implant was 25 +/- 7% (between 11% and 34%; NYHA class II/III in 83.3%). A du chamber system was implanted in 5 cases, and an ICD plus cardiac resynchronization pacing in 2 cases. There was no perioperative mortality. At the time of discharge, 71.2% of the pts were taking amiodarone and 66.7 % beta-blockers. During a 38 +/- 16-month follow-up (4 appointments/year), we analyzed the following parameters: rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, appropriate ICD shocks, inappropriate detections/therapy, nonfatal major arrhythmic events (arrhythmic storm, therapeutic exhaustion, recurrent ventricular tachycardia), cardiac mortality, SD and total mortality.
Forty-five readmissions (1.9 +/- 2.3/pt) occurred in 14 pts (58%), 24.4% due to congestive heart failure. Appropriate ICD shocks (without hospitalization) occurred in 62.5% of the pts, 16.6% had inappropriate therapy (50% because of increased heart rate due to atrial fibrillation) and 37.5% suffered nonfatal major arrhythmic events. Death due to SD was 4.2%, cardiac mortality 12.5% and total mortality 25%.
Severe left ventricular dysfunction is common in ICD pts. During long-term follow-up, the majority of these pts receive appropriate ICD shocks, which emphasizes the importance of SD prevention in this population. The frequent documentation of supraventricular arrhythmias (causing inappropriate ICD therapy) and nonfatal major arrhythmic events also reflects the presence of a worse arrhythmic substrate in this subgroup. Despite the poor initial prognosis associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias in pts with severe left ventricular dysfunction, ICD therapy may contribute to a better long-term clinical outcome.
左心室射血分数(LVEF)被公认为植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)患者的重要预后指标。这种治疗方法对危及生命的心律失常和严重左心室功能障碍患者生存的影响仍存在争议。
评估植入ICD用于心脏性猝死(SD)二级预防的患者中严重左心室功能障碍的长期临床意义。
在我们机构连续四年接受ICD植入的70例患者中,我们研究了24例LVEF<35%且ICD植入后随访>12个月的患者(男性占87.5%;年龄62.79岁)。索引心律失常为室性心动过速19例,室颤导致的SD 5例。基础疾病为缺血性心肌病(n = 19)、扩张型心肌病(n = 4)和高血压性心脏病(n = 1)。植入时的平均LVEF为25±7%(介于11%和34%之间;83.3%为纽约心脏协会II/III级)。5例植入双腔系统,2例植入ICD加心脏再同步起搏。围手术期无死亡。出院时,71.2%的患者服用胺碘酮,66.7%服用β受体阻滞剂。在38±16个月的随访期间(每年4次随访),我们分析了以下参数:因心血管原因再次住院、ICD恰当电击、不恰当检测/治疗、非致命性重大心律失常事件(心律失常风暴、治疗无效、复发性室性心动过速)、心脏死亡、SD和总死亡。
14例患者(58%)发生45次再入院(1.9±2.3次/患者),24.4%是由于充血性心力衰竭。62.5%的患者发生了ICD恰当电击(未住院),16.6%有不恰当治疗(50%是由于房颤导致心率增加),37.5%发生了非致命性重大心律失常事件。SD导致的死亡为4.2%,心脏死亡为12.5%,总死亡为25%。
严重左心室功能障碍在ICD患者中很常见。在长期随访中,这些患者中的大多数接受了ICD恰当电击,这强调了在该人群中预防SD 的重要性。室上性心律失常(导致ICD不恰当治疗)和非致命性重大心律失常事件的频繁记录也反映了该亚组中存在更差的心律失常基质。尽管严重左心室功能障碍患者的室性快速性心律失常初始预后较差,但ICD治疗可能有助于获得更好的长期临床结局。