RESUMEN
Background: Catheter ablation (CA) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be a useful treatment strategy, however, few studies have compared CA to medical therapy (MT) in the sarcoidosis population. Objective: To assess in-hospital outcomes and unplanned readmissions following CA for VT compared to MT in patients with sarcoidosis. Methods: Data was obtained from the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2010 and 2019 to identify patients with sarcoidosis admitted for VT either undergoing CA or MT during elective and non-elective admission. Primary endpoints were a composite endpoint of inpatient mortality, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest and 30-day hospital readmissions. Procedural complications at index admission and causes of readmission were also identified. Results: Among 1581 patients, 1217 with sarcoidosis and VT underwent MT compared to 168 with CA during non-elective admission. 63 patients admitted electively underwent CA compared with 129 managed medically. There was no difference in the composite outcome for patients undergoing catheter ablation or medical therapy during both non-elective (9.0 % vs 12.0 %, p = 0.312) and elective admission (3.2 % vs. 7.8 %, p = 0.343). The most common cause of readmission were ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in both groups, however, those undergoing elective CA were less likely to be readmitted for VA compared to non-elective CA. The most common complication in the CA group was cardiac tamponade (4.8 %). Conclusion: VT ablation is associated with similar rates of 30-day readmission compared to MT and does not confer increased risk of harm with respect to inpatient mortality, cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Further research is warranted to determine if a subgroup of sarcoidosis patients admitted with VT are better served with an initial conservative management strategy followed by VT ablation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Many patients with mildly to moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who require permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation do not have a concurrent indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, the risk of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in this population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the risk of VT/VF after PPM implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of 243 patients with LVEF between 35% and 49% who underwent PPM placement and did not meet indications for an ICD. The primary end point was occurrence of sustained VT/VF. Competing risks regression was performed to calculate subhazard ratios for the primary end point. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 27 months; 73% of patients were male, average age was 79 ± 10 years, average LVEF was 42% ± 4%, and 70% were New York Heart Association class II or above. Most PPMs were implanted for sick sinus syndrome (34%) or atrioventricular block (50%). Of 243 total patients, 11 (4.5%) met the primary end point of VT/VF. Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) was associated with significantly higher rates of VT/VF, with a subhazard ratio of 5.4 (95% CI, 1.5-20.1; P = .01). Of patients with multivessel CAD, 8 of 82 (9.8%) patients met the primary end point for an annualized risk of 4.3% per year. CONCLUSION: Patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF and multivessel CAD undergoing PPM implantation are at increased risk for the development of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Patients in this population may benefit from additional risk stratification for VT/VF and consideration for upfront ICD implantation.
