Tran Patrick, Marshall Leeann, Patchett Ian, Salim Handi, Yusuf Shamil, Panikker Sandeep, Kuehl Michael, Osman Faizel, Banerjee Prithwish, Randeva Harpal, Dhanjal Tarvinder
Cardiology Registrar University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, CV2 2DX.
Senior Cardiac Physiologist University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, CV2 2DX.
Br J Cardiol. 2021 Nov 30;28(4):48. doi: 10.5837/bjc.2021.048. eCollection 2021.
Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) can prevent sudden cardiac death, but the risk of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and ICD shocks persist. Strategies to minimise such risks include medication optimisation, device programming and ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Whether the choice of these interventions at follow-up are influenced by factors such as the type of arrhythmia or ICD therapy remains unclear. To investigate this, we evaluated ICD follow-up strategies in a real-world population with primary and secondary prevention ICDs. REFINE-VT (Real-world Evaluation of Follow-up strategies after Implantable cardiac-defibrillator therapies in patients with Ventricular Tachycardia) is an observational study of 514 ICD recipients recruited between 2018 and 2019. We found that 77 patients (15%) suffered significant VA and/or ICD therapies, of whom 26% experienced a second event; 31% received no intervention. We observed an inconsistent approach to the choice of strategies across different types of arrhythmias and ICD therapies. Odds of intervening were significantly higher if ICD shock was detected compared with anti-tachycardia pacing (odds ratio [OR] 8.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 39.6, p=0.007). Even in patients with two events, the rate of escalation of antiarrhythmics or referral for VT ablation were as low as patients with single events. This is the first contemporary study evaluating how strategies that reduce the risk of recurrent ICD events are executed in a real-world population. Significant inconsistencies in the choice of interventions exist, supporting the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to provide evidence-based care to this population.
植入式心脏除颤器(ICD)可预防心源性猝死,但室性心律失常(VA)复发和ICD电击风险依然存在。将此类风险降至最低的策略包括优化药物治疗、设备程控以及室性心动过速(VT)消融。在随访中,这些干预措施的选择是否受心律失常类型或ICD治疗等因素影响仍不明确。为对此进行研究,我们在植入一级和二级预防ICD的真实世界人群中评估了ICD随访策略。REFINE-VT(植入式心脏除颤器治疗后室性心动过速患者随访策略的真实世界评估)是一项对2018年至2019年间招募的514名ICD植入者进行的观察性研究。我们发现,77名患者(15%)发生了严重VA和/或接受了ICD治疗,其中26%经历了第二次事件;31%未接受任何干预。我们观察到,针对不同类型的心律失常和ICD治疗,策略选择方法并不一致。与抗心动过速起搏相比,检测到ICD电击时进行干预的几率显著更高(优势比[OR] 8.4,95%置信区间[CI] 1.7至39.6,p = 0.007)。即使在发生两次事件的患者中,抗心律失常药物升级或转介进行VT消融的比例也与发生单次事件的患者一样低。这是第一项评估在真实世界人群中如何执行降低ICD事件复发风险策略的当代研究。在干预措施的选择上存在显著不一致,这支持了需要采取多学科方法为该人群提供循证护理。