AIMS: The present study assessed the role of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) in risk stratification of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with ICM and LVEF < or = 40% (n = 106, age 61 +/- 7 years, LVEF 27 +/- 7%) underwent PVS. This was considered positive in case of inducibility of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) with < or =3 extrastimuli; polymorphic VT, ventricular fibrillation (VF), and fast monomorphic VT (CL < or = 230 ms) with < or =2 extrastimuli. Primary end-point was the combination of arrhythmic death and VF requiring ICD shock. Forty-nine patients (46%) were inducible at PVS; 74 (70%) were implanted with ICD. During a 24-month follow-up, the primary end-point occurred more frequently in positive PVS patients among the overall population, among patients with LVEF < or = 30% (n = 80) and among patients with an ICD. The negative predictive value of PVS was 96% in each group. In the overall population, both PVS (HR 7.32, 95% CI 1.6-32) and LVEF (HR 4.59, 95% CI 1.6-13) predicted the primary end-point. CONCLUSION: PVS may still have a role in predicting the arrhythmic risk in patients with ICM. A negative PVS identifies a subgroup with a very low risk of arrhythmic events even in patients with LVEF < or = 30%.
AIMS: The present study assessed the role of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) in risk stratification of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with ICM and LVEF < or = 40% (n = 106, age 61 +/- 7 years, LVEF 27 +/- 7%) underwent PVS. This was considered positive in case of inducibility of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) with < or =3 extrastimuli; polymorphic VT, ventricular fibrillation (VF), and fast monomorphic VT (CL < or = 230 ms) with < or =2 extrastimuli. Primary end-point was the combination of arrhythmic death and VF requiring ICD shock. Forty-nine patients (46%) were inducible at PVS; 74 (70%) were implanted with ICD. During a 24-month follow-up, the primary end-point occurred more frequently in positive PVSpatients among the overall population, among patients with LVEF < or = 30% (n = 80) and among patients with an ICD. The negative predictive value of PVS was 96% in each group. In the overall population, both PVS (HR 7.32, 95% CI 1.6-32) and LVEF (HR 4.59, 95% CI 1.6-13) predicted the primary end-point. CONCLUSION:PVS may still have a role in predicting the arrhythmic risk in patients with ICM. A negative PVS identifies a subgroup with a very low risk of arrhythmic events even in patients with LVEF < or = 30%.
Authors: Marcello Disertori; Michele M Gulizia; Giancarlo Casolo; Pietro Delise; Andrea Di Lenarda; Giuseppe Di Tano; Maurizio Lunati; Luisa Mestroni; Jorge Salerno-Uriarte; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.160