AIM: To evaluate the prognostic value of electrophysiological stimulation (EPS) in the risk stratification for tachyarrhythmic events and sudden cardiac death (SCD). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study and analyzed the long-term follow-up of 265 consecutive patients who underwent programmed ventricular stimulation at the Luzerner Kantonsspital (Lucerne, Switzerland) between October 2003 and April 2012. Patients underwent EPS for SCD risk evaluation because of structural or functional heart disease and/or electrical conduction abnormality and/or after syncope/cardiac arrest. EPS was considered abnormal, if a sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) was inducible. The primary endpoint of the study was SCD or, in implanted patients, adequate ICD-activation. RESULTS: During EPS, sustained VT was induced in 125 patients (47.2%) and non-sustained VT in 60 patients (22.6%); in 80 patients (30.2%) no arrhythmia could be induced. In our cohort, 153 patients (57.7%) underwent ICD implantation after the EPS. During follow-up (mean duration 4.8 ± 2.3 years), a primary endpoint event occurred in 49 patients (18.5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.593 (95%CI: 0.515-0.670) for a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% and 0.636 (95%CI: 0.563-0.709) for inducible sustained VT during EPS. The AUROC of EPS was higher in the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (0.681, 95%CI: 0.578-0.785). Cox regression analysis showed that both, sustained VT during EPS (HR: 2.26, 95%CI: 1.22-4.19, P = 0.009) and LVEF < 35% (HR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.13-3.54, P = 0.018) were independent predictors of primary endpoint events. CONCLUSION: EPS provides a benefit in risk stratification for future tachyarrhythmic events and SCD and should especially be considered in patients with LVEF ≥ 35%.
AIM: To evaluate the prognostic value of electrophysiological stimulation (EPS) in the risk stratification for tachyarrhythmic events and sudden cardiac death (SCD). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study and analyzed the long-term follow-up of 265 consecutive patients who underwent programmed ventricular stimulation at the Luzerner Kantonsspital (Lucerne, Switzerland) between October 2003 and April 2012. Patients underwent EPS for SCD risk evaluation because of structural or functional heart disease and/or electrical conduction abnormality and/or after syncope/cardiac arrest. EPS was considered abnormal, if a sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) was inducible. The primary endpoint of the study was SCD or, in implanted patients, adequate ICD-activation. RESULTS: During EPS, sustained VT was induced in 125 patients (47.2%) and non-sustained VT in 60 patients (22.6%); in 80 patients (30.2%) no arrhythmia could be induced. In our cohort, 153 patients (57.7%) underwent ICD implantation after the EPS. During follow-up (mean duration 4.8 ± 2.3 years), a primary endpoint event occurred in 49 patients (18.5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.593 (95%CI: 0.515-0.670) for a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% and 0.636 (95%CI: 0.563-0.709) for inducible sustained VT during EPS. The AUROC of EPS was higher in the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≥ 35% (0.681, 95%CI: 0.578-0.785). Cox regression analysis showed that both, sustained VT during EPS (HR: 2.26, 95%CI: 1.22-4.19, P = 0.009) and LVEF < 35% (HR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.13-3.54, P = 0.018) were independent predictors of primary endpoint events. CONCLUSION: EPS provides a benefit in risk stratification for future tachyarrhythmic events and SCD and should especially be considered in patients with LVEF ≥ 35%.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arrhythmia; Cardiac; Electrophysiologic techniques; Sudden cardiac death
Authors: Andreas W Schoenenberger; Paul Erne; Stephan Ammann; Gerhard Gillmann; Richard Kobza; Andreas E Stuck Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Pieter A Vriesendorp; Arend F L Schinkel; Johan Van Cleemput; Rik Willems; Luc J L M Jordaens; Dominic A M J Theuns; Marjon A van Slegtenhorst; Thomy J de Ravel; Folkert J ten Cate; Michelle Michels Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: C Schmitt; P Barthel; G Ndrepepa; J Schreieck; A Plewan; A Schömig; G Schmidt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timo H Mäkikallio; Petra Barthel; Raphael Schneider; Axel Bauer; Jari M Tapanainen; Mikko P Tulppo; Georg Schmidt; Heikki V Huikuri Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-03-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Yenn-Jiang Lin; Marcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Alberto Alfie; Serge Boveda; Nikolaos Dagres; Dario Di Toro; Lee L Eckhardt; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Carina Hardy; Takanori Ikeda; Aparna Jaswal; Elizabeth Kaufman; Andrew Krahn; Kengo Kusano; Valentina Kutyifa; Han S Lim; Gregory Y H Lip; Santiago Nava-Townsend; Hui-Nam Pak; Gerardo Rodríguez Diez; William Sauer; Anil Saxena; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Diego Vanegas; Marmar Vaseghi; Arthur Wilde; T Jared Bunch; Alfred E Buxton; Gonzalo Calvimontes; Tze-Fan Chao; Lars Eckardt; Heidi Estner; Anne M Gillis; Rodrigo Isa; Josef Kautzner; Philippe Maury; Joshua D Moss; Gi-Byung Nam; Brian Olshansky; Luis Fernando Pava Molano; Mauricio Pimentel; Mukund Prabhu; Wendy S Tzou; Philipp Sommer; Janice Swampillai; Alejandro Vidal; Thomas Deneke; Gerhard Hindricks; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214