Department of Electrocardiology, Institute of Cardiology, The John Paul II Hospital in Cracow, Jagiellonian University, School of Medicine, Cracow, Poland.
Kardiol Pol. 2012;70(12):1264-75.
In order to achieve optimal outcomes when treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias with implantable devices, it is extremely important to identify parameters predisposing to arrhythmia. In view of current restrictions in healthcare funding, there is a growing demand for additional predictors of arrhythmia that would allow better patient selection for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD).
To identify parameters predisposing to ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention in ICD recipients.
We analysed 376 patients (56 women, 320 men, mean age 66.1 ± 11.2 [range 22-89] years) who underwent ICD implantation between January 2008 and December 2010. Of these, 275 patients underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD and 101 for secondary prevention. Operative protocols and in-hospital and outpatient records were analysed retrospectively. Mean QRS width and heart rate (HR) were calculated in resting surface electrocardiograms (25 mm/s, 10 mm/1 mV). Intracardiac electrograms stored in ICD memory were used to evaluate appropriateness of anti-arrhythmic interventions and analyse the number of ventricular tachyarrhythmia events, ICD interventions and their type. We analysed the following clinical and procedural variables: age, gender, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), type of SCD prevention (primary or secondary), ICD type (single chamber--VR, dual chamber--DR), performing defibrillation threshold testing to establish defibrillation safety margin at ICD implantation, ventricular lead location (right ventricular outflow tract region, right ventricular apex), mean HR, QRS width, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention after implantation, ICD interventions, history of cardiovascular disease and arrhythmia (myocardial infarction, ischaemic and non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, arterial hypertension, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, permanent atrial fibrillation, percutaneous coronary intervention, and/or coronary artery bypass grafting), and medications (amiodarone, sotalol, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEI]/angiotensin receptor blockers [ARB], statins, loop diuretics, aldosterone antagonists).
During the mean follow-up period of 387 ± 300 (range 5-1400) days, appropriate ICD intervention due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in 68 of 376 ICD patients (61 men, 7 women, mean age 64.7 ± 12.3 [range 22-89] years). Mean time interval from ICD implantation to the occurrence of arrhythmia was 281 ± 229 (range 5-972) days (p 〈 0.001). To optimize sensitivity and specificity when analysing ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention vs. no ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention, cutoff values were established using ROC curves (cutoff for LVEF = 31%, HR = 79 bpm). Using these cutoff values, patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention were compared to those without ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention. Significant differences were observed in LVEF (p< 0.001), HR (p< 0.022), ACEI/ARB use (p< 0.034), and NYHA class (p< 0.001). By Kaplan-Meier univariate analysis, patients with LVEF> 31% (log-rank test p< 0.001), HR ≤ 79 bpm (log-rank test p< 0.022), QRS width ≤ 114 ms (log-rank test p < 0.045), and NYHA class II (log-rank test p< 0.001) were more likely to be free from ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention. Cox multivariate analysis showed that reduced LVEF (≤ 31%) was the only independent predictor of arrhythmia/intervention. LVEF values below 31% are associated with a significant 20-fold increase (p< 0.02) in the risk of arrhythmia during the first 3 years after ICD implantation. Among 68 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention, mean 4.1 interventions per person occurred during the follow-up period. In the overall study population, the number of interventions was 0.28 per person per year. Overall, 92 inappropriate ICD interventions were observed, all resulting from atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate. Interventions had no effect on total mortality. Higher numbers of appropriate interventions were observed in patients who died due to heart failure.
Factors associated with a significantly increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia/appropriate ICD intervention included reduced LVEF, increased resting HR, NYHA class II or higher heart failure, and wide QRS. Patients with low LVEF (< 31%) are at particular risk of SCD due to ventricular arrhythmia and this parameter alone can influence the decision regarding ICD implantation. No effect of ICD interventions on total mortality was observed, although more ICD interventions were observed in patients who died due to heart failure.
为了在使用植入式设备治疗室性心动过速时获得最佳效果,识别易发生心律失常的参数非常重要。鉴于目前医疗保健资金的限制,人们越来越需要额外的心律失常预测指标,以便更好地选择植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)用于预防心源性猝死(SCD)的一级预防。
确定导致室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的参数在 ICD 接受者中。
我们分析了 2008 年 1 月至 2010 年 12 月期间接受 ICD 植入的 376 例患者(56 名女性,320 名男性,平均年龄 66.1±11.2[22-89]岁)。其中,275 例患者因 SCD 一级预防而接受 ICD 植入,101 例因二级预防而接受 ICD 植入。回顾性分析手术方案和住院及门诊记录。在静息体表心电图上计算平均 QRS 宽度和心率(25mm/s,10mm/1mV)。使用 ICD 内存中存储的心内电图评估抗心律失常干预的适当性,并分析室性心动过速事件、ICD 干预及其类型的数量。我们分析了以下临床和程序变量:年龄、性别、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、SCD 预防类型(一级或二级)、ICD 类型(单腔-VR,双腔-DR)、在 ICD 植入时进行除颤阈值测试以建立除颤安全裕度、心室导线位置(右心室流出道区域、右心室心尖)、平均心率、QRS 宽度、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级、植入后室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的发生、ICD 干预、心血管疾病和心律失常史(心肌梗死、缺血性和非缺血性扩张型心肌病、动脉高血压、心室颤动、室性心动过速、永久性心房颤动、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和/或冠状动脉旁路移植术)以及药物(胺碘酮、索他洛尔、β受体阻滞剂、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂[ACEI]/血管紧张素受体阻滞剂[ARB]、他汀类药物、噻嗪类利尿剂、醛固酮拮抗剂)。
在平均 387±300(5-1400)天的随访期间,376 例 ICD 患者中有 68 例(61 名男性,7 名女性,平均年龄 64.7±12.3[22-89]岁)发生了因室性心动过速而导致的适当 ICD 干预。心律失常发生的平均时间间隔为 281±229(5-972)天(p<0.001)。为了在分析室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预与无室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预时优化敏感性和特异性,使用 ROC 曲线确定了截止值(LVEF 的截止值=31%,HR=79bpm)。使用这些截止值,将发生室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的患者与未发生室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的患者进行比较。在 LVEF(p<0.001)、HR(p<0.022)、ACEI/ARB 使用(p<0.034)和 NYHA 分级(p<0.001)方面观察到显著差异。通过 Kaplan-Meier 单变量分析,LVEF>31%(对数秩检验 p<0.001)、HR≤79bpm(对数秩检验 p<0.022)、QRS 宽度≤114ms(对数秩检验 p<0.045)和 NYHA 分级 II(对数秩检验 p<0.001)的患者发生室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的可能性更小。Cox 多变量分析显示,LVEF 降低(≤31%)是心律失常/干预的唯一独立预测因子。LVEF 值低于 31%与 ICD 植入后前 3 年心律失常风险增加 20 倍(p<0.02)显著相关。在 68 例发生室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预的患者中,平均每人在随访期间发生 4.1 次干预。在整个研究人群中,每人每年的干预次数为 0.28 次。总的来说,观察到 92 次不适当的 ICD 干预,均为心房颤动伴快速心室率所致。干预对总死亡率没有影响。心力衰竭死亡的患者观察到更多的适当干预次数。
与室性心动过速/适当 ICD 干预风险显著增加相关的因素包括 LVEF 降低、静息 HR 增加、NYHA 分级 II 或更高的心衰以及宽 QRS。LVEF 较低(<31%)的患者由于室性心律失常而特别容易发生 SCD,并且该参数单独就可以影响 ICD 植入的决策。尽管心力衰竭死亡的患者观察到更多的 ICD 干预,但 ICD 干预对总死亡率没有影响。