Division of Cardiology, Angiology, Intensive Care Medicine, EVK Düsseldorf, cNEP, Cardiac Neuro- and Electrophysiology Research Consortium, Kirchfeldstrasse 40, 40217, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2023 Jul 27;13(1):12182. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37440-2.
History of syncope is an independent predictor for sudden cardiac death. Programmed stimulation may be considered for risk stratification, but data remain sparse among different populations. Here, we analyzed the prognostic value of inducible ventricular arrhythmia (VA) regarding clinical outcome in patients with syncope undergoing defibrillator implantation. Among 4196 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center German Device Registry, patients with syncope and inducible VA (n = 285, 6.8%) vs. those with a secondary preventive indication (n = 1885, 45.2%), defined as previously documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, serving as a control group were studied regarding demographics, device implantation and post-procedural adverse events. Patients with syncope and inducible VA (64.9 ± 14.4 years, 81.1% male) presented less frequently with congestive heart failure (15.1% vs. 29.1%; p < 0.001) and any structural heart disease (84.9% vs. 89.3%; p = 0.030) than patients with a secondary preventive indication (65.0 ± 13.8 years, 81.0% male). Whereas dilated cardiomyopathy (16.8% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.009) was less common, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (5.6% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.010) and Brugada syndrome (2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) were present more often. During 1-year-follow-up, mortality (5.1% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.036) and the rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (5.8% vs. 10.0%; p = 0.027) were lower in patients with syncope and inducible VA. Among patients with inducible VA, post-procedural adverse events including rehospitalization (27.6% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.37) did not differ between those with vs. without syncope. Taken together, patients with syncope and inducible VA have better clinical outcomes than patients with a secondary preventive defibrillator indication, but comparable outcomes to patients without syncope, which underlines the relevance of VA inducibility, potentially irrespective of a syncope.
晕厥病史是心源性猝死的独立预测因素。对于风险分层,可以考虑进行程控刺激,但不同人群的数据仍然很少。在这里,我们分析了在接受除颤器植入的晕厥患者中,诱发性室性心律失常(VA)与临床结局的相关性。在前瞻性、多中心德国器械注册中心登记的 4196 例患者中,晕厥伴可诱发性 VA(n=285,6.8%)与具有二级预防指征(n=1885,45.2%)的患者相比,后者定义为先前记录的持续性室性心动过速或心室颤动,作为对照组,研究了人口统计学、器械植入和术后不良事件。晕厥伴可诱发性 VA 患者(64.9±14.4 岁,81.1%男性)充血性心力衰竭(15.1% vs. 29.1%;p<0.001)和任何结构性心脏病(84.9% vs. 89.3%;p=0.030)的发生率低于具有二级预防指征的患者(65.0±13.8 岁,81.0%男性)。扩张型心肌病(16.8% vs. 23.8%;p=0.009)的发生率较低,而肥厚型心肌病(5.6% vs. 2.8%;p=0.010)和 Brugada 综合征(2.1% vs. 0.3%;p<0.001)的发生率较高。在 1 年随访期间,晕厥伴可诱发性 VA 患者的死亡率(5.1% vs. 8.9%;p=0.036)和主要心脏或脑血管不良事件发生率(5.8% vs. 10.0%;p=0.027)均低于具有二级预防指征的患者。在可诱发性 VA 患者中,术后不良事件(包括再住院)的发生率(27.6% vs. 21.7%;p=0.37)在伴或不伴晕厥的患者之间无差异。总之,与具有二级预防指征的患者相比,晕厥伴可诱发性 VA 的患者具有更好的临床结局,但与无晕厥的患者结局相当,这强调了 VA 可诱发性的重要性,可能与晕厥无关。