Rolf Sascha, Haverkamp Wilhelm, Borggrefe Martin, Breithardt Guenter, Bocker Dirk
Department of Cardiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie, Augustenburger Platz 1, D-13553 Berlin, Germany.
Europace. 2009 Mar;11(3):289-96. doi: 10.1093/europace/eun330. Epub 2008 Dec 18.
We sought to investigate the association of inducibility of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (PVT/VF) or sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT) at standardized programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) with the long-term likelihood of sudden death and/or fast VT in a large cohort of patients with idiopathic non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prophylaxis.
Between 1994 and 2007, 160 consecutive patients with DCM and spontaneous sustained VT/VF or cardiac arrest underwent PVS prior to ICD implantation. Outcome data, particularly probability of survival without (sudden) death or appropriate ICD therapies for fast VT, were assessed during long-term follow-up. PVT/VF was induced in 50 (31%) and SMVT in 30 (19%) patients. During a mean follow-up of 53 +/- 15 months, we observed 19/50 (38%), 10/30 (33%), and 14/80 (18%) deaths in the PVT/VF, SMVT, and non-inducible group, respectively. These deaths were sudden in 7/50 (14%), 2/30 (7%), and 0/80 (0%) of patients, respectively. At least one fast VT was treated by the ICD in 26/50 (52%), 6/30 (20%), and 22/80 (28%) patients, respectively. PVT/VF but not SMVT-inducible patients had a significantly worse overall survival (log-rank P = 0.013), survival without sudden cardiac death (P < 0.01), or survival without fast VT (P < 0.01) according to Kaplan-Meier method than non-inducible patients. Additionally, survival free of fast VT was significantly worse in PVT/VF vs. SMVT-inducible patients (P < 0.01).
Inducibility of PVT/VF is a much stronger predictor of recurrences of fast VT as opposed to SMVT induction in DCM patients with ICD for secondary prevention.
我们试图在一大群患有特发性非缺血性扩张型心肌病(DCM)并植入植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)进行二级预防的患者中,研究标准化心室程序刺激(PVS)时多形性室性心动过速或室颤(PVT/VF)或持续性单形性室性心动过速(SMVT)的可诱导性与猝死和/或快速室性心动过速长期发生可能性之间的关联。
1994年至2007年间,160例连续的患有DCM且有自发持续性室性心动过速/室颤或心脏骤停的患者在植入ICD之前接受了PVS。在长期随访期间评估结局数据,尤其是无(猝死)死亡或针对快速室性心动过速进行适当ICD治疗的生存概率。50例(31%)患者诱发出PVT/VF,30例(19%)患者诱发出SMVT。在平均53±15个月的随访期间,我们分别在PVT/VF组、SMVT组和非诱发性组中观察到19/50(38%)、10/30(33%)和14/80(18%)例死亡。这些死亡分别在7/50(14%)、2/30(7%)和0/80(0%)的患者中为猝死。分别有26/50(52%)、6/30(20%)和22/80(28%)的患者至少有一次快速室性心动过速接受了ICD治疗。根据Kaplan-Meier方法,与非诱发性患者相比,PVT/VF但非SMVT诱发性患者的总体生存率(对数秩检验P = 0.013)、无心脏性猝死生存率(P < 0.01)或无快速室性心动过速生存率(P < 0.01)显著更差。此外,PVT/VF组与SMVT诱发性患者相比,无快速室性心动过速的生存率显著更差(P < 0.01)。
在接受ICD二级预防的DCM患者中,PVT/VF的可诱导性是快速室性心动过速复发的更强预测指标,而不是SMVT的诱导。