Usefulness of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in a Large Mixed Patient Cohort of Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death.

Background: Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current guidelines. To help evaluate a patient's individual risk, a new score to predict the benefit of an implantable defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, has recently been proposed. The score tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death based on data from four previous MADIT trials. We aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single-center register of S-ICD patients with various underlying cardiomyopathies. Methods and results: All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single-center database were included in the analysis (n = 173). During a follow-up of 1227 ± 978 days, 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. There was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n = 29, p = 0.04) to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia. However, the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score (p = 0.3) in patients with (n = 142, p = 0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n = 31, p = 0.88) and patients with LV-EF < 35%. Of the risk factors included in the risk score calculation, only non-sustained ventricular tachycardias were significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score (p = 0.001, r = 0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI < 23 kg/m2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score. Conclusion: The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. In a large S-ICD cohort of primary prevention, the value of the score was limited to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Future research should evaluate the performance of the score in different subgroups and compare it to other risk scores to assess its value for daily clinical practice.

Experimental evidence for proarrhythmic effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a sensitive whole-heart model.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have raised serious concerns on cardiovascular safety of widely prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize the electrophysiological effects of certain NSAIDs in an established whole heart model of proarrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-eight hearts of New Zealand White rabbits were harvested and retrogradely perfused employing a Langendorff setup, and electrophysiology studies were performed to investigate action potential duration at 90% of repolarization (APD90 ), QT intervals, and effective refractory period (ERP). After generating baseline data, hearts were perfused with ibuprofen (Group 1, n = 12; 10 and 30 µM), indomethacin (Group 2, n = 13; 10 and 20 µM) and diclofenac (Group 3, n = 13; 10 and 20 µM), respectively, and the pacing protocols were repeated for each concentration. In all groups, perfusion with the NSAIDs resulted in a significant and reproducible shortening of APD90 and QT interval. In all groups, the arrhythmia susceptibility was significantly raised as occurrence of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia under programmed ventricular stimulation was significantly increased under perfusion with ibuprofen, indomethacin and diclofenac in all concentrations. CONCLUSION: The perfusion with ibuprofen, indomethacin and diclofenac in commonly used doses raised the arrhythmia susceptibility in an established rabbit whole-heart model while APD shortening and shortened ERP seem to be crucial for arrhythmogenesis.

Outcome of catheter ablation in the very elderly-insights from a large matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ablation emerged as first line therapy in the treatment of various arrhythmias. Nevertheless, in older patients (pts), decision is often made pro drug treatment as more complications and less benefit are suspected. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that different kind of ablations can be performed safely regardless of the pts age. METHODS: We enrolled all pts aged >80 years (yrs) who underwent ablation for three different arrhythmias (atrial flutter [AFL], atrioventricular nodal re-entry tachycardia [AVNRT], ventricular tachycardia [VT]) between August 2002 and December 2018. Procedural data and outcome were compared with matched groups aged 60 to 80 years and 40 to 60 years, respectively. Periprocedural and in-hospital complications were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis included 1191 patients (397 pts per group: 63% AFL, 23% AVNRT, 14% VT) who underwent ablation. Acute success was high in all types of arrhythmias irrespective of age (>80, 60-80, 40-60 years: AFL 97%/98%/98%, AVNRT 97%/95%/97%, VT 82%/86%/93%). Rate of periprocedural complications were similar in all groups treated for AFL and AVNRT. For VT ablations significant differences were noted between pts > 80 or 60 to 80 years and those aged 40-60 years (16.1%/14.3%/3.6%). Most complications were infections and groin haematoma. No strokes, iatrogenic atrioventricular blocks and deaths related to the ablation occurred. CONCLUSION: Ablation appears safe in pts > 80 years. Success rates were comparable to matched younger cohorts. A significant difference was observed for VT patients.

Slow pathway modification in patients presenting with only two consecutive AV nodal echo beats.

BACKGROUND: Slow pathway modification (SPM) is the therapy of choice for AV-nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). When AVNRT is not inducible, empirical ablation can be considered, however, the outcome in patients with two AV nodal echo beats (AVNEBs) is unknown. METHODS: Out of a population of 3003 patients who underwent slow pathway modification at our institution between 1993 and 2013, we retrospectively included 32 patients with a history of symptomatic tachycardia, lack of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (pSVT) inducibility but occurrence of two AVNEBs. RESULTS: pSVT documentation by electrocardiography (ECG) was present in 20 patients. The procedural endpoint was inducibility of less than two AVNEBs. This was reached in 31 (97%) patients. Long-term success was assessed by a telephone questionnaire (follow-up time 63±9 months). A total 94% of the patients benefited from the procedure (59% freedom from symptoms; 34% improvement in symptoms). Among those patients in whom ECG documentation was not present, 100% benefited (58% freedom from symptoms, 42% improvement). CONCLUSION: This is the first collective analysis of a group of patients presenting with symptoms of pSVT and inducibility of only two AVNEBs. Procedural success and clinical long-term follow-up were in the range of the reported success rates of slow pathway modification of inducible AVNRT, independent of whether ECG documentation was present. Thus, SPM is a safe and effective therapy in patients with two AVNEBs.