Neves Raquel, Crotti Lia, Bains Sahej, Bos J Martijn, Dagradi Federica, Musu Giulia, Garmany Ramin, Giovenzana Fulvio L F, Cerea Paolo, Giudicessi John R, Schwartz Peter J, Ackerman Michael J
Department of Molecular Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, Windland Smith Rice Sudden Death Genomics Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias of Genetic Origin and Laboratory of Cardiovascular Genetics, Milan, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Heart Rhythm. 2025 Aug;22(8):2073-2081. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.063. Epub 2024 Oct 2.
Guideline-directed device therapy for long QT syndrome (LQTS) has evolved during the years, and indications for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vary between professional cardiac societies.
We aimed to identify the subset of patients with LQTS who satisfied a class I or class II 2022 European Society of Cardiology guideline-based recommendation for an ICD and to determine the outcomes of those patients who received an ICD compared with those treated without an ICD.
Retrospective analysis was conducted of 2861 patients with LQT1, LQT2, or LQT3 to identify patients meeting contemporary recommendations for guideline-directed device therapy. Basic demographics, clinical characteristics, and frequency/type of breakthrough cardiac events (BCEs) were extracted, and outcomes/complications were compared between patients treated with an ICD and those treated without one.
Of the 290 patients (approximately 10%) who met a guideline-based recommendation, 53 (18%) satisfied a class I/level B indication for an ICD; 56 (19%), a class I/level C indication; 19 (7%), a class IIa/level C indication; and 162 (56%), a class IIb/level B indication. However, most patients (156/290 [54%]) did not receive an ICD. Of those who received an ICD, 55 of 134 (41%) experienced ≥1 appropriate ventricular fibrillation-terminating ICD therapy, whereas ICD-related complications occurred in 13 patients (10%). Of those who were treated without an ICD, only 6 of 156 patients (4%) had nonlethal BCEs, which was significantly lower compared with the ICD group (P < .001).
With >1200 years of combined follow-up, the experience and evidence from our 2 LQTS specialty centers suggest that many patients who satisfy a recommendation for an ICD based on the latest 2022 European Society of Cardiology guidelines may not need one. This is particularly true when the indication stemmed from a BCE while receiving beta blocker therapy or in asymptomatic patients with an increased 1-2-3-LQTS-Risk score.
多年来,长QT综合征(LQTS)的指南指导下的器械治疗不断发展,不同专业心脏学会对植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的适应证也有所不同。
我们旨在确定符合2022年欧洲心脏病学会I类或IIa类指南推荐使用ICD的LQTS患者亚组,并确定接受ICD治疗的患者与未接受ICD治疗的患者的结局。
对2861例LQT1、LQT2或LQT3患者进行回顾性分析,以确定符合当代指南指导下器械治疗推荐的患者。提取基本人口统计学资料、临床特征以及心脏事件突破(BCE)的频率/类型,并比较接受ICD治疗的患者与未接受ICD治疗的患者的结局/并发症。
在符合基于指南推荐的290例患者(约10%)中,53例(18%)符合ICD的I类/B级适应证;56例(19%)符合I类/C级适应证;19例(7%)符合IIa类/C级适应证;162例(56%)符合IIb类/B级适应证。然而,大多数患者(156/290 [54%])未接受ICD治疗。在接受ICD治疗的患者中,134例中有55例(41%)经历了≥1次适当的心室颤动终止ICD治疗,而13例患者(10%)发生了与ICD相关的并发症。在未接受ICD治疗的患者中,156例中只有6例(4%)发生了非致命性BCE,与ICD组相比显著更低(P <.001)。
经过超过1200年的联合随访,我们两个LQTS专科中心的经验和证据表明,许多符合基于2022年欧洲心脏病学会最新指南推荐使用ICD的患者可能并不需要ICD。当适应证源于接受β受体阻滞剂治疗时发生的BCE或1-2-3-LQTS风险评分升高的无症状患者时尤其如此。