Ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence in primary versus secondary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients and role of electrophysiology study.

PURPOSE: In recent years, there has been a shift away from performing electrophysiologic study (EPS) to guide implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation with a reliance on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone.
METHODS: ICD patients were prospectively recruited from the multicentre COMFORT (Concept of Optimal Management of ventricular Fibrillation Or Very fast ventricular Tachycardia) trial. Primary prevention ICD patients (n = 260, groups 1 and 2) were compared to secondary prevention ICD patients (n = 210, group 3). Primary prevention ICDs were implanted in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy based on LVEF ≤ 40 % and inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) at EPS (n = 123, group 1) or impaired LVEF alone (LVEF ≤ 30 % or LVEF ≤ 35 % with NYHA class II or III; n = 137, group 2). EPS was performed in 61 % of secondary prevention ICD patients (n = 129). Patients were followed up for >12 months with a primary endpoint of spontaneous VT/ventricular fibrillation (VF).
RESULTS: A significantly higher rate of spontaneous VT/VF occurred in secondary versus primary prevention ICD patients (P < 0.001) and in EPS-guided versus LVEF-guided primary prevention ICD patients (P = 0.029). At 2 years, the proportion of patients with ≥1 VT/VF episode was 24.6 ± 4.2 %, 19.9 ± 4.6 % and 37.1 ± 3.9 % for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In the secondary prevention, patients who underwent EPS, VT/VF occurred in 44.4 ± 5.9 % and 14.1 ± 6.6 % with a positive versus negative result, respectively (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary prevention ICD patients have more spontaneous VT/VF than primary prevention ICD patients. Secondary and primary prevention ICD patients with inducible VT at EPS have more VT/VF than patients without inducible VT or impaired LVEF alone.