Doldi Florian, Willy Kevin, Wolfes Julian, Ellermann Christian, Taeger Steffen, Wegner Felix K, Güner Fatih, Korthals Dennis, Rath Benjamin, Frommeyer Gerrit, Köbe Julia, Reinke Florian, Lange Philipp Sebastian, Eckardt Lars
Department for Cardiology II: Electrophysiology, University Hospital Munster, 48149 Munster, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2025 Apr 22;14(9):2859. doi: 10.3390/jcm14092859.
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) are crucial in treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTs) and preventing sudden cardiac death. However, ICD shocks are linked to higher mortality and a lower quality of life. Many patients suffer from recurrent VTs despite concomitant antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy with amiodarone, and it is unclear if changing the AAD while on chronic amiodarone therapy is beneficial. Hence, we investigated the impact of changing the AAD on the incidence of appropriate ICD shocks in patients on chronic amiodarone, impaired LV function, and at least one previous VT ablation. We retrospectively analyzed 131 ICD patients (LVEF < 40%) from a single-center registry. All were on chronic amiodarone and had undergone VT ablation. The mean age was 66.0 ± 12.8 years; 82.4% were male; and the follow-up period averaged 5.8 ± 0.6 years. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 52.7% of patients. AAD therapy was changed in 49 patients (37.4%), primarily due to inefficacy (40.8%), intolerance (16.3%), or other reasons (42.9%). Of those, 8 received flecainide (≥200 mg) and 41 sotalol (≥240 mg); 82 (62.6%) continued amiodarone. VT re-ablation was performed in 23.7%. During follow-up, 11 patients (8.4%) died and 18 (13.7%) received appropriate ICD shocks-17 with changed AAD vs. 1 with continued amiodarone ( ≤ 0.01). A multivariate regression showed that switching from amiodarone to flecainide or sotalol was significantly associated with increased ICD shock risk (OR 34.9; 95% CI 4.3-283.8; < 0.01). In patients on chronic amiodarone with severely impaired LV function and at least one previous VT ablation, changing AAD therapy to flecainide or sotalol is associated with an increased incidence of appropriate ICD shocks.
植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)在治疗室性快速心律失常(VT)和预防心源性猝死方面至关重要。然而,ICD电击与更高的死亡率和更低的生活质量相关。尽管同时使用胺碘酮进行抗心律失常药物(AAD)治疗,但许多患者仍反复发生VT,目前尚不清楚在长期使用胺碘酮治疗期间更换AAD是否有益。因此,我们研究了在长期使用胺碘酮、左心室功能受损且至少有一次既往VT消融治疗的患者中,更换AAD对适当ICD电击发生率的影响。我们对来自单中心登记处的131例ICD患者(左心室射血分数<40%)进行了回顾性分析。所有患者均长期服用胺碘酮并接受过VT消融治疗。平均年龄为66.0±12.8岁;82.4%为男性;随访期平均为5.8±0.6年。52.7%的患者患有缺血性心肌病。49例患者(37.4%)更换了AAD治疗,主要原因是无效(40.8%)、不耐受(16.3%)或其他原因(42.9%)。其中,8例接受了氟卡尼(≥200mg)治疗,41例接受了索他洛尔(≥240mg)治疗;82例(62.6%)继续使用胺碘酮。23.7%的患者进行了VT再次消融治疗。在随访期间,11例患者(8.4%)死亡,18例(13.7%)接受了适当的ICD电击——17例更换了AAD,1例继续使用胺碘酮(P≤0.01)。多因素回归分析显示,从胺碘酮转换为氟卡尼或索他洛尔与ICD电击风险增加显著相关(比值比34.9;95%置信区间4.3-283.8;P<0.01)。在长期服用胺碘酮、左心室功能严重受损且至少有一次既往VT消融治疗的患者中,将AAD治疗更换为氟卡尼或索他洛尔与适当ICD电击的发生率增加相关。