Temporal relationship between subclinical atrial fibrillation and embolic events.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with implantable pacemakers and defibrillators, subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke; however, there is limited understanding of their temporal relationship. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Evaluation in Pacemaker Patients and the Atrial Fibrillation Reduction Atrial Pacing Trial (ASSERT) enrolled 2580 pacemaker and defibrillator patients aged ≥65 years with a history of hypertension but without a history of atrial fibrillation. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators precisely logged the time and duration of all episodes of SCAF and recorded electrograms that were adjudicated by experts. We examined the temporal relationship between SCAF >6 minutes in duration and stroke or systemic embolism. Of 51 patients who experienced stroke or systemic embolism during follow-up, 26 (51%) had SCAF. In 18 patients (35%), SCAF was detected before stroke or systemic embolism. However, only 4 patients (8%) had SCAF detected within 30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, and only 1 of these 4 patients was experiencing SCAF at the time of the stroke. In the 14 patients with SCAF detected >30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, the most recent episode occurred at a median interval of 339 days (25th to 75th percentile, 211-619) earlier. Eight patients (16%) had SCAF detected only after their stroke, despite continuous monitoring for a median duration of 228 days (25th to 75th percentile, 202-719) before their event. CONCLUSIONS: Although SCAF is associated with an increased risk of stroke and embolism, very few patients had SCAF in the month before their event. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00256152.

Atrial overdrive pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation: insights from ASSERT.

BACKGROUND: Pacing algorithms to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) have been tested in studies of modest size and duration with inconclusive results. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the relationship between subclinical AF and stroke in patients 65 years of age or older with no previous AF receiving a first pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for standard indications. Three months following device implantation, pacemaker patients were randomized to have continuous atrial overdrive pacing (CAOP) algorithm turned "ON" or "OFF." The primary study outcome was development of electrocardiogram-documented AF >6 minutes. RESULTS: A total of 2343 patients were randomized and followed for a mean of 2.5 years. The primary outcome occurred in 60 patients in the CAOP ON group (1.96% per year) and in 45 in the CAOP OFF group (1.44% per year; relative risk 1.38; 95% confidence interval 0.94-2.03; P = .10). Major clinical events (stroke, myocardial infarct, cardiovascular death, systemic embolism, heart failure hospitalization) occurred at similar frequencies in the 2 groups. In the CAOP ON group, 133 of the 1164 patients (11.4%) crossed over to CAOP OFF compared with 12 of the 1179 (1.0%) who crossed over from OFF to ON (P <.0001). False-positive device detections of AF were more common among patients assigned to CAOP ON (23%) than among patients assigned to CAOP OFF (7.7%; relative risk 2.99; 95% confidence interval 2.40-3.74; P <.001). Pacemaker generator replacement for battery depletion occurred in 4.4% of the subjects randomized to CAOP ON and in 2.5% of the patients assigned to CAOP OFF (relative risk 1.70; 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.67; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: CAOP does not prevent new-onset AF, is poorly tolerated, and accelerates pulse generator battery depletion.

Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke.

BACKGROUND: One quarter of strokes are of unknown cause, and subclinical atrial fibrillation may be a common etiologic factor. Pacemakers can detect subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate, which correlate with electrocardiographically documented atrial fibrillation. We evaluated whether subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate detected by implanted devices were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients who did not have other evidence of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We enrolled 2580 patients, 65 years of age or older, with hypertension and no history of atrial fibrillation, in whom a pacemaker or defibrillator had recently been implanted. We monitored the patients for 3 months to detect subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias (episodes of atrial rate >190 beats per minute for more than 6 minutes) and followed them for a mean of 2.5 years for the primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with pacemakers were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive continuous atrial overdrive pacing. RESULTS: By 3 months, subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by implanted devices had occurred in 261 patients (10.1%). Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias were associated with an increased risk of clinical atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 5.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.78 to 8.17; P<0.001) and of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.85; P=0.007). Of 51 patients who had a primary outcome event, 11 had had subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by 3 months, and none had had clinical atrial fibrillation by 3 months. The population attributable risk of stroke or systemic embolism associated with subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias was 13%. Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias remained predictive of the primary outcome after adjustment for predictors of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.89; P=0.008). Continuous atrial overdrive pacing did not prevent atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias, without clinical atrial fibrillation, occurred frequently in patients with pacemakers and were associated with a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ASSERT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256152.).

Preventing tomorrow's sudden cardiac death today: part I: Current data on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death.

Accurate and timely prediction of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a necessary prerequisite for effective prevention and therapy. Although the largest number of SCD events occurs in patients without overt heart disease, there are currently no tests that are of proven predictive value in this population. Efforts in risk stratification for SCD have focused primarily on predicting SCD in patients with known structural heart disease. Despite the ubiquity of tests that have been purported to predict SCD vulnerability in such patients, there is little consensus on which test, in addition to the left ventricular ejection fraction, should be used to determine which patients will benefit from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. On July 20 and 21, 2006, a group of experts representing clinical cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, biostatistics, economics, and health policy were joined by representatives of the US Food and Drug administration, Centers for Medicare Services, Agency for Health Research and Quality, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the device and pharmaceutical industry for a round table meeting to review current data on strategies of risk stratification for SCD, to explore methods to translate these strategies into practice and policy, and to identify areas that need to be addressed by future research studies. The meeting was organized by the Duke Center for the Prevention of SCD at the Duke Clinical Research Institute and was funded by industry participants. This article summarizes the presentations and discussions that occurred at that meeting.

Preventing tomorrow's sudden cardiac death today: part II: Translating sudden cardiac death risk assessment strategies into practice and policy.

Although current evidence supporting a more precise strategy for identifying patients at highest risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) is sparse, strategies for translating existing and future evidence into clinical practice and policy are needed today. A great many unanswered questions exist. Examples include the following: At what level of risk for SCD should we pursue further testing or therapy? How should clinical strategies ethically and economically balance alternative outcomes? How can we best translate optimal strategies into clinical practice so as to prevent tomorrow's SCDs? On July 20 and 21, 2006, a group of individuals with expertise in clinical cardiovascular medicine, biostatistics, economics, and health policy was joined by government (Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), professional societies (Heart Rhythm Society), and industry to discuss strategies for risk assessment and prevention of SCD. The meeting was organized by the Duke Center for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death and the Duke Clinical Research Institute. This article, the second of 2 documents, summarizes the policy discussions of that meeting, discusses an analytic framework for evaluating the risks and benefits associated with SCD prevention and risk stratification, and addresses the translation of SCD risk assessment strategies into practice and policy.

Estimation of the optimal VV delay by an IEGM-based method in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Determination of the optimal interventricular (VV) delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy currently relies on costly, time-consuming echocardiographic (ECHO) methods. This study evaluated the performance of a new intracardiac electrogram (IEGM)-based VV method compared to the aortic velocity time integral (AVTI) method of VV delay optimization. The study included two patient groups. Eleven patients enrolled by a single center in the Rhythm II ICD trial underwent prospective comparisons of the AVTI at the VV interval determined by the IEGM VV method versus the maximum AVTI at the echocardiographically determined optimal VV delay. In 61 patients enrolled in the RHYTHM VV trial, the same testing methods were compared retrospectively. In the prospective study, the maximum AVTI by the ECHO-based method (24.3 +/- 7.9 cm), was closely correlated with maximum AVTI by the IEGM-based method (23.9 +/- 7.9 cm; concordance correlation coefficient = 0.99; 95% confidence, lower limit of 98%. Likewise, in the retrospective analysis, the ECHO-determined maximum AVTI (22.1 +/- 8.2 cm) was similar to that determined by the IEGM-based method (20.9 +/- 8.3 cm; concordance correlation coefficient = 0.98; 95% confidence, lower limit of 97%).

ASymptomatic atrial fibrillation and Stroke Evaluation in pacemaker patients and the atrial fibrillation Reduction atrial pacing Trial (ASSERT).

Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and may have the same prognostic implications as symptomatic AF. Among patients receiving dual-chamber pacemakers, it is now possible to quantify asymptomatic AF accurately. Most of these episodes are of short duration, often lasting only seconds to minutes and are called atrial high-rate episodes (AHRE) to distinguish them from the longer episodes of overt AF. To understand properly the clinical importance of asymptomatic AF, a large study of pacemaker patients without clinically overt AF is required. ASSERT is a multicenter, cohort follow-up, and single-blinded randomized trial in elderly hypertensive patients with a pacemaker recently implanted for sinus or atrioventricular node disease. The goals of this trial are to evaluate whether the detection of AHRE with pacemaker telemetry predicts an increased risk of stroke and other vascular events and to evaluate if atrial overdrive pacing reduces symptomatic AF. ASSERT is evaluating the hypothesis that among pacemaker patients without a previous history of AF, detection of AHRE predicts an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism. The second hypothesis to be tested is that overdrive atrial pacing will reduce the risk of symptomatic AF in pacemaker patients without a previous history of AF. Finally, a 400-patient substudy will use the noninvasive testing capabilities of the patients' pacemaker to evaluate changes in atrial electrophysiology over 2 years. This substudy will determine if atrial electrical remodeling is detectable in pacemaker patients and if it is associated with the development of AF.

Effect of amiodarone and sotalol on ventricular defibrillation threshold: the optimal pharmacological therapy in cardioverter defibrillator patients (OPTIC) trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) receive adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy, most commonly amiodarone or sotalol. The effects of these drugs on defibrillation energy requirements have not been previously assessed in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) trial was a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of amiodarone plus beta-blocker and sotalol versus beta-blocker alone for reduction of ICD shocks. Within OPTIC, a prospectively designed substudy evaluated the effects of the 3 treatment arms on defibrillation energy requirements. Defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were measured (binary step-down protocol) at baseline and again after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy in 94 patients, of whom 29 were randomized to receive beta-blocker therapy (control group), 35 to amiodarone plus beta-blocker, and 30 to sotalol. In the control group, the mean DFT decreased from 8.77+/-5.15 J at baseline to 7.13+/-3.43 J (P=0.027); in the amiodarone group, DFT increased from 8.53+/-4.29 to 9.82+/-5.84 J (P=0.091). In the sotalol group, DFT decreased from 8.09+/-4.81 to 7.20+/-5.30 J (P=0.21). DFT changes in the beta-blocker and the amiodarone group were significantly different (P=0.006). In all patients, adequate safety margins for defibrillation were maintained. No clinical variable predicted baseline DFT or changes in DFT on therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although amiodarone increased DFT, the effect size with modern ICD systems is very small. Therefore, DFT reassessment after the institution of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone or sotalol is not routinely required.

Comparison of beta-blockers, amiodarone plus beta-blockers, or sotalol for prevention of shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators: the OPTIC Study: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is effective but is associated with high-voltage shocks that are painful. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether amiodarone plus beta-blocker or sotalol are better than beta-blocker alone for prevention of ICD shocks. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized controlled trial with blinded adjudication of events of 412 patients from 39 outpatient ICD clinical centers located in Canada, Germany, United States, England, Sweden, and Austria, conducted from January 13, 2001, to September 28, 2004. Patients were eligible if they had received an ICD within 21 days for inducible or spontaneously occurring ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to treatment for 1 year with amiodarone plus beta-blocker, sotalol alone, or beta-blocker alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was ICD shock for any reason. RESULTS: Shocks occurred in 41 patients (38.5%) assigned to beta-blocker alone, 26 (24.3%) assigned to sotalol, and 12 (10.3%) assigned to amiodarone plus beta-blocker. A reduction in the risk of shock was observed with use of either amiodarone plus beta-blocker or sotalol vs beta-blocker alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.68; P<.001). Amiodarone plus beta-blocker significantly reduced the risk of shock compared with beta-blocker alone (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.52; P<.001) and sotalol (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.85; P = .02). There was a trend for sotalol to reduce shocks compared with beta-blocker alone (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-1.01; P = .055). The rates of study drug discontinuation at 1 year were 18.2% for amiodarone, 23.5% for sotalol, and 5.3% for beta-blocker alone. Adverse pulmonary and thyroid events and symptomatic bradycardia were more common among patients randomized to amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite use of advanced ICD technology and treatment with a beta-blocker, shocks occur commonly in the first year after ICD implant. Amiodarone plus beta-blocker is effective for preventing these shocks and is more effective than sotalol but has an increased risk of drug-related adverse effects.Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00257959.

Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with various heart conditions who are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Whether benefit occurs in patients early after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: We conducted the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial, a randomized, open-label comparison of ICD therapy (in 332 patients) and no ICD therapy (in 342 patients) 6 to 40 days after a myocardial infarction. We enrolled patients who had reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.35 or less) and impaired cardiac autonomic function (manifested as depressed heart-rate variability or an elevated average 24-hour heart rate on Holter monitoring). The primary outcome was mortality from any cause. Death from arrhythmia was a predefined secondary outcome. RESULTS: During a mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 30+/-13 months, there was no difference in overall mortality between the two treatment groups: of the 120 patients who died, 62 were in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (hazard ratio for death in the ICD group, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.55; P=0.66). There were 12 deaths due to arrhythmia in the ICD group, as compared with 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.83; P=0.009). In contrast, there were 50 deaths from nonarrhythmic causes in the ICD group and 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 1.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.76; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ICD therapy does not reduce overall mortality in high-risk patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction. Although ICD therapy was associated with a reduction in the rate of death due to arrhythmia, that was offset by an increase in the rate of death from nonarrhythmic causes.

Shock on T versus direct current voltage for induction of ventricular fibrillation: a randomized prospective comparison.

VF is induced during ICD implantation to determine efficacy of therapy. Establishing the best clinical method of induction of VF would potentially be beneficial in reducing the number of induction attempts and reducing the frequency of inadvertent induction of VT. Commonly used methods to induce VF include shock in the T wave vulnerable period (T shock) and high frequency stimulation. This study compared the efficacy of T shock with a new induction method using a 9-V DC pulse. The study was a randomized, prospective, case crossover trial in patients receiving ICDs. VF was induced by T shock and DC in a randomized sequence during an ICD implant. VF was induced at least four times in each patient (two T shocks and two DC inductions) and with each induction; attempts were continued with modifications until successful. A paired evaluation between the T shock/DC induction was performed in 37 patients (28 men, age 64 +/- 12 years) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 +/- 0.20. Arrhythmia indications were VT (n = 23), VF (n = 10), and VT/VF (n = 4). Drug therapy included amiodarone (n = 10), metoprolol (n = 6), digoxin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). The average T shock voltage was 207.0 +/- 16.1 V. The S1 cycle drive length was consistently 400 ms, and the mean S2 coupling interval was 317.8 +/- 19.6 ms. The length of time DC applied averaged 3.8 +/- 1.4 seconds. A total of 148 episodes of VF were included in the analysis. T shock induced VF with a cycle length of 213.5 +/- 35.1 ms, and DC induced VF with a cycle length of 214.6 +/- 34.5 ms (P = 0.86). Although VF was eventually induced for each randomization, the number of attempts required were dependent on the method of induction. The successful DC first attempt VF induction rate was 96%, with three patients requiring two attempts during one of the DC inductions. T shock had a 68% first attempt success rate with 21 patients requiring multiple T shocks to induce VF. All nine female patients had at least one unsuccessful first attempt T shock, which contributed to an overall unsuccessful first attempt induction rate significantly higher in women then men (36.1% vs 12.5%, P = 0.001). A constant DC voltage induction of VF may be more effective than T shock for induction of VF in a clinical setting because it reduces the number of attempts required to induce VF. By either method, VF appears to be more difficult to induce in women. DC induction has the advantage of simple programming of only duration of stimulation. These findings have implications particularly for ICD implantation with conscious sedation.