Comparison of defibrillator therapy and other therapeutic modalities for sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation associated with coronary artery disease.

Outcomes of 282 patients referred to the arrhythmia service at Montefiore Medical Center for sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 214) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 68) associated with coronary artery disease were analyzed retrospectively. All patients underwent serial drug trials by electrophysiologic testing and Holter monitoring. Sixty-eight patients who did not respond to drug therapy were treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD group), and 214 patients were treated with other methods guided by electrophysiologic testing and Holter monitoring (non-ICD group). The non-ICD group included 49 patients who responded to drug therapy as judged by electrophysiologic testing, as well as patients who did not respond and were not treated with defibrillator therapy for various reasons. Ten patients died in the hospital (2 patients in the ICD group, 8 in the non-ICD group). Actuarial survival rates free of total cardiac death at 1, 2, and 3 years were, respectively, 94%, 87%, and 85% in the ICD group, and 82%, 78%, and 73% in the non-ICD group (p = NS). Survival rates free of total death at 1, 2, and 3 years were 90%, 82%, and 76% in the ICD group, and 82%, 76%, and 70% in the non-ICD group, respectively (p = NS). Survival rates free of total cardiac and total deaths of 49 patients treated with an effective regimen determined by electrophysiologic testing were not significantly different from those of the ICD group. This retrospective study suggests that outcomes of patients treated with ICDs may not be dramatically different from those of patients treated with other methods guided primarily by electrophysiologic testing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Influence of left ventricular function on survival and mode of death after implantable defibrillator therapy (Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Montefiore Medical Center experience).

To determine the influence of left ventricular (LV) function on survival and mode of death in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), sudden death, surgical mortality, total arrhythmia-related death, total cardiac death and total death were retrospectively evaluated in 377 consecutive patients. The outcomes were also compared between patients with an LV ejection fraction > or = 30% (214 patients, group 1) and < 30% (148 patients, group 2). Surgical mortality was 3.9% (1.8% in group 1, 7% in group 2). During the follow-up of 25 +/- 20 months, actuarial survival rates of all patients at 3 years were 96% for sudden deaths, 81% for total cardiac deaths and 74% for total mortality. When the 2 groups were compared, survival rates of groups 1 and 2 at 3 years, respectively, were 99 and 90% for sudden death (p < 0.05), 97 and 84% for sudden death and surgical mortality (p < 0.01), 94 and 80% for the total arrhythmia-related death (p < 0.001), 88 and 68% for total cardiac death (p < 0.0001), and 81 and 62% for total mortality (p < 0.002). In group 2, 73% of total cardiac deaths within 1 year were causally related to the arrhythmia. Thus, in patients with an ICD, sudden death rates were very low. However, total cardiac death and total death rates were relatively higher. The outcomes of patients with an ICD were strongly influenced by the degree of LV dysfunction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Influence of left ventricular function on outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients treated with implantable defibrillators were compared between patients with left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30% and less than 30%. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 68 consecutive patients treated with implantable defibrillators, 40 patients (group 1) had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30%, and 28 patients (group 2) had left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%. Sudden death, surgical mortality, nonsudden arrhythmia-related death (death within 24 hours after an arrhythmic event despite initial termination of the arrhythmia by the implantable defibrillator), total arrhythmia-related death (including sudden death, surgical death, and nonsudden arrhythmia-related death), and total cardiac death were compared between the two groups. Surgical mortality was 4.4% (0% in group 1, 11% in group 2). During the follow-up of 31 +/- 27 months, actuarial survival rates free of events were 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 96%, 91%, and 82% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death (p = NS); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 85%, 81%, and 72% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death and surgical mortality (p less than 0.05); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 82%, 78%, and 70% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total arrhythmia-related death (p less than 0.05); and 95%, 95%, and 95% in group 1 and 82%, 69%, and 57% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total cardiac death (p less than 0.05). Four (57%) of seven nonsudden cardiac deaths during the initial 36-month follow-up period were causally related to arrhythmia (three surgical deaths and one arrhythmia-related nonsudden death). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators is strongly influenced by the degree of left ventricular dysfunction. In group 1 patients, surgical mortality, sudden death, and total cardiac death are rare. In group 2, sudden death rate may not be markedly different from that of group 1 patients. However, the risk of therapy (surgical mortality) is high. Many nonsudden cardiac deaths are causally related to arrhythmia (surgical mortality or nonsudden arrhythmia-related death). Therefore, the survival rate free of total arrhythmia-related death is significantly lower in group 2 (70% versus 97% in group 1 at 3 years). Further studies are needed to determine the roles of defibrillator therapy and other therapies in various clinical settings.

A simple noninvasive measurement of stenotic mitral valve area: an alternative approach using M-mode and Doppler echocardiography.

Doppler echocardiography is a widely used noninvasive technique to examine the mitral valve area (MVA) by obtaining mitral pressure half-time (PHT) and to assess the severity of the stenosis. However, several hemodynamic factors influence the PHT and may render the PHT data inaccurate in any measurement of MVA under certain conditions. Using a simple echo-Doppler (E-D) method, we assessed the MVA in a physiological equation. The mitral flow volume (MFV) is represented by MVA x transmitral mean flow velocity (mV) x diastolic filling time (DFT). Thus, the formula can be restated as MVA (cm2) = MFV (cm3)/mV (cm/sec) x DFT (sec). We measured MFV by M-mode, and mV and DFT by continuous wave Doppler echocardiography. This formula was tested in 43 patients with isolated mitral stenosis. MVA was obtained by the PHT and E-D methods, and the data obtained were validated against the results of cardiac catheterization. The results obtained using the E-D method showed much better correlation (r = 0.82) with those of catheterization than those with the PHT method (r = 0.52). The inter- and intraobserver variabilities were checked. The results obtained with the E-D method were found to be reproducible. To further validate the accuracy of the E-D method, MVA was measured by both methods at different R-R intervals after exercise and the results were compared. The MVA obtained by the PHT method showed marked variations; whereas, that obtained by the E-D method remained nearly constant. Similarly, in a patient with atrial fibrillation, the MVA assessed by the PHT method varied from beat to beat; whereas, the fluctuations in MVA were minimal using the E-D method. We concluded that the E-D method can be reliable and clinically easily applicable for the accurate assessment of MVA.