Comparing clinical performance of current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation recommendations in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Four implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recommendation algorithms are available The International Task Force Consensus ('ITFC'), an ITFC modification by Orgeron et al. ('mITFC'), the AHA/HRS/ACC guideline for VA management ('AHA'), and the HRS expert consensus statement ('HRS'). This study aims to validate and compare the performance of these algorithms in ARVC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified 617 definite ARVC patients (38.5 ± 15.1 years, 52.4% male, 39.2% prior sustained VA) according to four algorithms. Clinical performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, ROC-analysis, and decision curve analysis for any sustained VA and for fast VA (>250 b.p.m.). During 6.4 [2.8-11.5] years follow-up, 282 (45.7%) patients experienced any sustained VA, and 63 (10.2%) fast VA. For any sustained VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (94.0-97.8% vs. 76.7-83.5%), but lower specificity (15.9-32.0% vs. 42.7%-60.1%). Similarly, for fast VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (95.2-97.1% vs. 76.7-78.4%) but lower specificity (42.7-43.1 vs. 76.7-78.4%). Decision curve analysis showed ITFC and mITFC to be superior for a 5-year sustained VA risk ICD indication threshold between 5-25% or 2-9% for fast VA. CONCLUSION: The ITFC and mITFC provide the highest protection rates, whereas AHA and HRS decrease unnecessary ICD placements. ITFC or mITFC should be used if we consider the 5-year threshold for ICD indication to lie within 5-25% for sustained VA or 2-9% for fast VA. These data will inform decision-making for ICD placement in ARVC.

Prevalence and management of aspirin hypersensitivity in a cardiology practice.

Background: Data are lacking with concern to the prevalence and management of aspirin (ASA) hypersensitivity. Objective: To study the prevalence, different types of reactions, and implications for clinical management of ASA hypersensitivity in a cardiology practice. Methods: We conducted an electronic medical record review of 11,375 individuals, 5052 (44%) in the ambulatory setting, and 6323 (56%) admitted for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), from January 2012 to December 2013. Results: The prevalence of ASA hypersensitivity was 1.88% (n = 214). Skin reactions were the most common (40 [19%]), followed by angioedema (10 [4.6%]), respiratory (9 [4.2%]), and anaphylaxis (6 [2.8%]). No records were found for 74 patients (34.5%), and 69 patients (32.2%) were mistakenly labeled as allergic for having gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the 214 patients who had documented ASA hypersensitivity, 108 individuals (50.46%) had coronary artery disease. The medications at discharge were the following: ASA (30 [14%]), thienopyridine (48 [22%]), a combination of ASA and thienopyridine (13 [6%]), anticoagulation only (26 [12%]), and no antiplatelet (97 [43%]). Conclusion: ASA hypersensitivity is often not documented correctly or is often misdiagnosed or not appropriately managed. There is a need for improved management of ASA hypersensitivity, including appropriate referral for ASA desensitization and combating unnecessary avoidance in patients with intolerance due to adverse effects.

Impact of Exercise Restriction on Arrhythmic Risk Among Patients With Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown a close link between exercise and development of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. How much exercise restriction reduces ventricular arrhythmia (VA), how genotype modifies its benefit, and whether it reduces risk sufficiently to defer implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We interviewed 129 arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patients (age: 34.0±14.8 years; male: 60%) with ICDs (36% primary prevention) about exercise participation. Exercise change was defined as annual exercise duration and dose in the 3 years before clinical presentation minus that after presentation. The primary outcome was appropriate ICD therapy for VA. During the 5.1 years (interquartile range: 2.7-10.8 years) after presentation, 74% (95/129) patients reduced exercise dose and 85 (66%) patients experienced the primary outcome. In multivariate analyses, top tertile reduction in exercise duration and dose were both associated with less VA (duration: hazard ratio: 0.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.81]; dose: hazard ratio: 0.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.44]). Greater reduction in exercise dose conferred greater reduction in VA (P=0.01 for trend). Patients without desmosomal mutations and those with primary-prevention ICDs benefited more from exercise reduction (P=0.16 and P=0.06 for interaction); however, 58% (18/31) of athletes who reduced exercise dose by >80% still experienced VA. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise restriction should be recommended to all arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patients with ICDs. Patients who are "gene-elusive" and those with primary-prevention devices may particularly benefit. Exercise reduction is unlikely to reduce arrhythmia sufficiently in high-risk patients to alter decision-making regarding ICD implantation.

Performance of the 2015 International Task Force Consensus Statement Risk Stratification Algorithm for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmias are a feared complication of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy. In 2015, an International Task Force Consensus Statement proposed a risk stratification algorithm for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: To evaluate performance of the algorithm, 365 arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy patients were classified as having a Class I, IIa, IIb, or III indication per the algorithm at baseline. Survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VT/VF) in follow-up was the primary outcome. Incidence of ventricular fibrillation/flutter cycle length <240 ms was also assessed. Two hundred twenty-four (61%) patients had a Class I implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indication; 80 (22%), Class IIa; 54 (15%), Class IIb; and 7 (2%), Class III. During a median 4.2 (interquartile range, 1.7-8.4)-year follow-up, 190 (52%) patients had VT/VF and 60 (16%) had ventricular fibrillation/flutter. Although the algorithm appropriately differentiated risk of VT/VF, incidence of VT/VF was underestimated (observed versus expected: 29.6 [95% confidence interval, 25.2-34.0] versus >10%/year Class I; 15.5 [confidence interval 11.1-21.6] versus 1% to 10%/year Class IIa). In addition, the algorithm did not differentiate survival free from ventricular fibrillation/flutter between Class I and IIa patients (P=0.97) or for VT/VF in Class I and IIa primary prevention patients (P=0.22). Adding Holter results (<1000 premature ventricular contractions/24 hours) to International Task Force Consensus classification differentiated risks. CONCLUSIONS: While the algorithm differentiates arrhythmic risk well overall, it did not distinguish ventricular fibrillation/flutter risks of patients with Class I and IIa implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indications. Limited differentiation was seen for primary prevention cases. As these are vital uncertainties in clinical decision-making, refinements to the algorithm are suggested prior to implementation.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients With Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy/Dysplasia: A Transatlantic Experience.

Background Despite growing use of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S- ICD ), its clinical role in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia ( ARVC /D) patients remains undefined. We aim to elucidate the cardiac phenotype, implant characteristics, and long-term efficacy regarding appropriate therapy and complications in ARVC /D patients with an S- ICD implant. Methods and Results A transatlantic cohort of ARVC /D patients who underwent S- ICD implantation was analyzed for clinical characteristics, S- ICD therapy, and long-term outcome including device-related complications. The cohort included 29 patients (52% male, 76% probands, 59% with ARVC /D-associated mutation, 59% primary prevention [no prior sustained ventricular arrhythmias], and 45% first-generation S- ICD devices). At implant, all inducible patients (27/29) had conversion of induced ventricular fibrillation. Two patients (7%) had superficial infections of the incision site that were treated conservatively. Over a median follow-up of 3.16 years (interquartile range: 2.21-4.51 years), all episodes (6 patients, 4% per year) of sustained ventricular arrhythmias were appropriately detected and treated. Six patients (21%) experienced 39 inappropriate shocks, with 3 requiring device explantation. Oversensing of noncardiac signal (n=4; especially myopotentials) and cardiac signal (n=4) was the most frequent etiology. No lead or device dislodgement, infection, skin erosion, or explantation related to need for antitachycardia pacing was noted. Conclusions S- ICD can effectively treat both induced and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ARVC /D. The rate of inappropriate shocks, although considerable, is comparable to that in ARVC /D patients treated with transvenous ICD s. When they occurred, inappropriate shocks were primarily due to cardiac and, uniquely, noncardiac oversensing. We suggest potential strategies for minimizing inappropriate therapy.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy: Predictors of Appropriate Therapy, Outcomes, and Complications.

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy is characterized by ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Once the diagnosis is established, risk stratification to determine whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is warranted is critical. METHODS AND RESULTS: The cohort included 312 patients (163 men, age at presentation 33.6±13.9 years) with definite arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy who received an ICD. Over 8.8±7.33 years, 186 participants (60%) had appropriate ICD therapy and 58 (19%) had an intervention for ventricular fibrillation/flutter. Ventricular tachycardia at presentation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.49; P<0.001), inducibility on electrophysiology study (HR: 3.14; 95% CI, 1.95-5.05; P<0.001), male sex (HR: 1.62; 95% CI, 1.20-2.19; P=0.001), inverted T waves in ≥3 precordial leads (HR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09-2.52; P=0.018), and premature ventricular contraction count ≥1000/24 hours (HR: 2.30; 95% CI, 1.32-4.00; P=0.003) were predictors of any appropriate ICD therapy. Inducibility at electrophysiology study (HR: 2.28; 95% CI, 1.10-4.70; P=0.025) remained as the only predictor after multivariable analysis. The predictors for ventricular fibrillation/flutter were premature ventricular contraction ≥1000/24 hours (HR: 4.39; 95% CI, 1.32-14.61; P=0.016), syncope (HR: 1.85; 95% CI, 1.10-3.11; P=0.021), aged ≤30 years at presentation (HR: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.04-3.00; P<0.036), and male sex (HR: 1.73; 95% CI, 1.01-2.97; P=0.046). Younger age at presentation (HR: 3.14; 95% CI, 1.32-7.48; P=0.010) and high premature ventricular contraction burden (HR: 4.43; 95% CI, 1.35-14.57; P<0.014) remained as independent predictors of ventricular fibrillation/flutter. Complications occurred in 66 participants (21%), and 64 (21%) had inappropriate ICD interventions. Overall mortality was low at 2%, and 4% underwent heart transplantation. CONCLUSION: These findings represent an important step in identifying predictors of ICD therapy for potentially fatal ventricular fibrillation/flutter and should be considered when developing a risk stratification model for arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy is an inherited cardiomyopathy characterised by ventricular arrhythmias and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy diagnosis is based on criteria that take into account electrical and structural cardiac abnormalities, as well as mutation analysis. Appropriate pharmacological therapy and the prevention of sudden death with implantable defibrillators are important in the management of these patients. Exercise is considered an important environmental factor for the development and progression of the disease.

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) is an inherited cardiomyopathy characterized by ventricular arrhythmias, right ventricular dysfunction, and sudden cardiac death. Since the first description of ARVD/C in 1982, there have been major advances in the diagnosis and management of the disease. For instance, the discovery of desmosomal abnormalities as a genetic basis for ARVD/C; the importance of proband status and ventricular ectopy for risk stratification of patients at risk for sudden cardiac death; and the critical role that exercise plays in the development and progression of ARVD/C, just to name a few. From a treatment perspective, the placement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in those at risk for sudden cardiac death and ablation techniques have also evolved over time. In 2010, an update of the 1994 Task Force Diagnostic criteria for ARVD/C was published with the hope to increase diagnostic sensitivity. This update incorporates new knowledge and technology to assess structural cardiac abnormalities and is the standard for diagnosis today.

Catheter-Directed Low-Dose Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Treatment of Right Atrial Thrombus Caused by a Central Venous Catheter.

Catheter-related atrial thrombosis is a potentially deadly complication of central venous catheters. Options for treatment include surgical thrombectomy, systemic anticoagulation, and systemic thrombolysis, but the optimal method of treatment remains unknown. We describe a 48-year-old woman with a large right atrial thrombus who was successfully treated with localized recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). She was treated with an 18-hour infusion of localized low-dose tPA administered through her central venous catheter. The dimensions of the thrombus decreased from 30 × 16 × 22 mm to 10 × 8 × 5 mm after treatment with tPA, corresponding to an associated 96% reduction in thrombus volume. No major bleeding complications were observed. Catheter-directed thrombolysis provides the theoretical advantage of a decreased rate of major bleeding by reducing the exposure to and duration of high-dose systemic thrombolytic therapy. To our knowledge, this is the second case report describing the use of this novel therapy. Although no guidelines for the treatment of atrial thrombosis or consensus on the optimal regimen for catheter-directed thrombolysis (and intensity of concomitant anticoagulation) exist, we believe that this intervention may be a well-tolerated alternative to systemic thrombolysis and surgery in certain patients.