Reduced atrial tachyarrhythmia susceptibility after upgrade of conventional implanted pulse generator to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) susceptibility in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction in whom worsening heart failure (HF) resulted in upgrade from conventional dual-chamber pulse generator to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator improves survival rates and symptoms in patients with LV systolic dysfunction but little is known about its effects on AT incidence in the same patient population. METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive HF patients who underwent device upgrade to CRT-D were included. Patients had > or =2 device interrogations in the 1 year before upgrade and > or =3 interrogations in the 18- to 24-month follow-up after upgrade. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed before and at 3 to 6 months after CRT-D. Additional observations included number of hospital stays, HF clinical status, and concomitant pharmacological therapy. By virtue of this study design, each patient served as his/her own control. Statistical analysis was performed by 2-tailed paired t test and with nonparametric tests where appropriate. RESULTS: Within 3 months after CRT, the number of HF patients with documented AT decreased significantly from the immediate pre-CRT value and tended to decline with time. At 1-year follow-up, 90% of patients were AT-free compared with 14% of patients 3 months before CRT (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the number of AT episodes/year and their maximum duration decreased after CRT (mean +/- SD; 181 +/- 50 vs. 50 +/- 20.2, p < 0.05, and 220.8 +/- 87 s vs. 28 +/- 21 s, p < 0.05, respectively). Finally, CRT was associated with improved LV ejection fraction (mean +/- SD; from 26 +/- 5.3% to 31 +/- 7%, p < 0.001) and reduced number of HF or arrhythmia hospital stays (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the view that CRT might decrease AT susceptibility in HF patients with LV systolic dysfunction.

Comparison of ventricular arrhythmia burden, therapeutic interventions, and survival, in patients < 75 and patients >or= 75 years of age treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

AIM: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduce arrhythmic mortality in a wide range of patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function. However, whether ICD therapy is equally effective in younger and older patients remains uncertain. To address this question, we compared ICD-documented ventricular tachyarrhythmia burden in patients < 75 years of age (Group 1) and >or= 75 years of age (Group 2). METHODS: Data were obtained from 208 consecutive ICD-treated patients: 159 Group 1 (mean age 59 +/- 12), and 49 Group 2 (mean age 79 +/- 3). Demographic and clinical features including presenting arrhythmias, LV ejection fraction, and nature of heart disease were similar. Medications were comparable except that amiodarone use was more frequent in Group 2. RESULTS: The numbers of combined ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes per month were 0.4 +/- 2 and 0.3 +/- 2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.7). Individually, VT episodes per month were 0.4 +/- 2 and 0.3 +/- 2 (P = 0.7) and VF episodes per month were 0.003 +/- 0.01 and 0.03 +/- 0.2 (P = 0.2) for the two groups, respectively. The mean duration and average cycle length of arrhythmias were 3.1 +/- 20.4 s and 275 +/- 119 ms in Group 1, and 6 +/- 45 s and 285 +/- 114 ms in Group 2 (P values, 0.6 and 0.8). The mean time between the ICD implantation and the first episode of a device-treated arrhythmia was comparable in the two groups. Thirty-six patients died during follow-up; 22 (14%) Group 1 and 14 (29%) Group 2 (P = 0.02), almost exclusively on a non-sudden cardiac basis. Thus, despite higher ultimate mortality in older patients, both the nature and characteristics of spontaneous arrhythmia recurrence, and the time to first apparently beneficial therapy, were similar during follow-up in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In terms of reversing potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, the rationale for ICD therapy is comparable in older and younger individuals.

Impact of upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy on ventricular arrhythmia frequency in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared cardiac resynchronization therapy's (CRT) impact on ventricular tachyarrhythmia susceptibility in patients who, due to worsening heart failure (HF) symptoms, underwent a replacement of a conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with a CRT-ICD. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective addition to conventional treatment of HF in many patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. However, whether CRT-induced improvements in HF status also reduce susceptibility to life-threatening arrhythmias is less certain. METHODS: Clinical and ICD electrogram data were evaluated in 18 consecutive ICD patients who underwent an upgrade to CRT-ICD. Pharmacologic HF therapy was not altered during follow-up. The definition of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) for each patient was as determined by device programming. Statistical comparisons used paired t tests. RESULTS: Findings were recorded during two time periods: 47 +/- 21 months (range 24 to 70 months) before and 14 +/- 2 months (range 9 to 18 months) after CRT upgrade. At time of upgrade, patient age was 69 +/- 11 years and ejection fraction was 21 +/- 8%. Before CRT the frequency of VT, VF, and appropriate ICD shocks was 0.31 +/- 1.23, 0.047 +/- 0.083, and 0.048 +/- 0.085 episodes/month/patient, respectively. After CRT-ICD, VT and VF arrhythmia burdens and frequency of shocks were respectively 0.13 +/- 0.56, 0.001 +/- 0.004, and 0.003 +/- 0.016 episodes/month/patient (p = 0.59, 0.03, and 0.05 vs. pre-CRT). CONCLUSIONS: Arrhythmia frequency and number of appropriate ICD treatments were reduced after upgrade to CRT-ICD for HF treatment. Thus, apart from hemodynamic benefits, CRT may also ameliorate ventricular tachyarrhythmia susceptibility in HF patients.

Comparison of ventricular arrhythmia frequency in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators have been shown to provide similar survival benefits for patients who have left ventricular dysfunction due to ischemic heart disease and for subsets of patients who have nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Findings in this study extend these observations by showing that patients who have ischemic or nonischemic heart disease and receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators not only have comparable mortality rates but also similar tachyarrhythmia frequencies during follow-up; further, mortality and tachyarrhythmia outcomes are independent of initial arrhythmia indication.

Biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillators improve survival compared with biventricular pacing alone in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Biventricular cardiac pacemakers provide important hemodynamic benefit in selected patients with heart failure and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, these patients remain at high mortality risk. To address this issue, we examined mortality outcome in patients with heart failure treated with biventricular pacemakers alone and those treated with biventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 126 consecutive patients with LV dysfunction and heart failure who received either a biventricular ICD (n = 62) or a biventricular pacemaker (n = 64) between January 1998 and December 2002. A minimum 12 months of follow-up was obtained in all survivors. ICD indications were conventional in all patients. Kaplan-Meier actuarial method and log rank statistics were used to calculate and compare survival rates in both groups. Comparison of mortality rates utilized Chi-square test. The two groups had similar clinical and demographic features, LV ejection fraction, and medication use. Average follow-up times were 13 +/- 11.8 months (range 4-60) and 18 +/- 13.2 months (range 0.5-53) for biventricular ICD and pacemaker groups, respectively. Overall mortality rate was significantly lower in the biventricular ICD group (13%, 8 deaths) compared to the pacemaker group (41%, 26 deaths) (P = 0.01). Further, the predominant survival benefit for ICD-treated patients becomes evident after the first 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study, although necessarily limited in their interpretation by the absence of treatment randomization, suggest that biventricular ICDs offer a survival benefit compared to biventricular pacing alone. Furthermore, this benefit may be most apparent if other clinical factors do not preclude patient survival >1 year postimplant.