Jayasree Pillarisetti1,2, Rakesh Gopinathannair3, Matthew J Haney3, Bassem Abazid3, Wasiq Rawasia3, Madhu Yeruva Reddy4,5, Niveditha Adabala4,5, Sudharani Bommana4,5, Martin Emert4,5, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy4,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City, KS, USA. jayasreep24@gmail.com. 2. University of Kansas Medical Center and Hospital, 3901, Rainbow Blvd; G-600, Kansas City, KS, 66196, USA. jayasreep24@gmail.com. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Robley Rex VA Medical Center and University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City, KS, USA. 5. University of Kansas Medical Center and Hospital, 3901, Rainbow Blvd; G-600, Kansas City, KS, 66196, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In patients who undergo implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), data is unclear whether their ICD generator needs to be replaced at end of life if their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) improves. Despite improvement in EF, the underlying scar may represent a potential substrate for ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: Data on 280 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD was obtained from two centers. Patients were followed for any improvement in EF to ≥35%. All arrhythmic events during follow-up, including appropriate and inappropriate shocks/ATP, were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty percent (n = 86/280) of patients improved their EF to >35% of which 41% (n = 37) underwent a generator change by the study ending period with the rest not yet at ERI. Mean baseline EF in patients with and without target EF improvement was 26 ± 7 and 23 ± 7% (p = 0.2). After excluding patients whose arrhythmic events data were unavailable, the final sample consisted of 62 patients in the EF improvement group and 156 patients in the group without EF improvement. In the group with EF improvement, appropriate events (shock + ATP) were noted in 19% of patients (n = 12/62) and inappropriate shocks and ATP in 6% of (n = 4/62) patients after their EF improved to >35%. Four patients received appropriate therapies when their EF was low prior to improvement. In contrast, in patients who had no improvement in EF, 27% (n = 43/156) received an appropriate therapy (p = 0.6) while 11% (n = 18/156) (p = 0.2) received inappropriate shocks and ATP. All-cause mortality was higher in patients without subsequent improvement in EF versus those with EF improvement (31 vs. 15% (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the number of appropriate therapies received by each group. Patients continue to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death despite improvement in EF.
PURPOSE: In patients who undergo implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), data is unclear whether their ICD generator needs to be replaced at end of life if their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) improves. Despite improvement in EF, the underlying scar may represent a potential substrate for ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: Data on 280 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD was obtained from two centers. Patients were followed for any improvement in EF to ≥35%. All arrhythmic events during follow-up, including appropriate and inappropriate shocks/ATP, were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty percent (n = 86/280) of patients improved their EF to >35% of which 41% (n = 37) underwent a generator change by the study ending period with the rest not yet at ERI. Mean baseline EF in patients with and without target EF improvement was 26 ± 7 and 23 ± 7% (p = 0.2). After excluding patients whose arrhythmic events data were unavailable, the final sample consisted of 62 patients in the EF improvement group and 156 patients in the group without EF improvement. In the group with EF improvement, appropriate events (shock + ATP) were noted in 19% of patients (n = 12/62) and inappropriate shocks and ATP in 6% of (n = 4/62) patients after their EF improved to >35%. Four patients received appropriate therapies when their EF was low prior to improvement. In contrast, in patients who had no improvement in EF, 27% (n = 43/156) received an appropriate therapy (p = 0.6) while 11% (n = 18/156) (p = 0.2) received inappropriate shocks and ATP. All-cause mortality was higher in patients without subsequent improvement in EF versus those with EF improvement (31 vs. 15% (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the number of appropriate therapies received by each group. Patients continue to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death despite improvement in EF.
Entities:
Keywords:
Generator change; Primary prevention; Sudden cardiac death
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P Dimarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arnold J Greenspon; Jasmine D Patel; Edmund Lau; Jorge A Ochoa; Daniel R Frisch; Reginald T Ho; Behzad B Pavri; Steven M Kurtz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marco Metra; Savina Nodari; Giovanni Parrinello; Raffaele Giubbini; Carlo Manca; Livio Dei Cas Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: E F Wever; R N Hauer; F L van Capelle; J G Tijssen; H J Crijns; A Algra; A C Wiesfeld; P F Bakker; E O Robles de Medina Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-04-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alfred E Buxton; Kerry L Lee; Gail E Hafley; Luis A Pires; John D Fisher; Michael R Gold; Mark E Josephson; Michael H Lehmann; Eric N Prystowsky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094