Influence of left ventricular lead location on outcomes in the COMPANION study.

INTRODUCTION: There are no randomized controlled trial data that evaluate mortality and hospitalization rates in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients based on left ventricular (LV) lead location. We analyzed the event-driven outcomes of mortality and hospitalization as well as functional outcomes including Functional Class, Quality-of-Life, and 6-minute walk distance in 1,520 patients enrolled in the COMPANION study of CRT versus optimal medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up after implantation of 16.2 months, patients randomized to CRT, regardless of lead location, experienced benefit compared with optimized pharmacologic therapy (OPT), with respect to all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. All but a posterior location showed benefit with respect to the all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization outcome. Mortality benefit in CRT-D patients was indifferent to LV lead position. All functional outcomes including 6-minute walk distance, Quality-of-Life (QOL) and Functional Class improved with CRT, regardless of LV lead location. CONCLUSION: LV lead location was not a major determinant of multiple measures of response to CRT therapy in the COMPANION Trial. While acute data indicate that a left lateral LV lead location results in the most favorable hemodynamic response, these chronic data suggest that positioning an LV lead in an anterior rather than a lateral or posterior LV location has similar benefit.

Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure who receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about long-term prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. METHODS: Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P<0.001). An inappropriate ICD shock, as compared with no inappropriate shock, was also associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05; P=0.002). For patients who survived longer than 24 hours after an appropriate ICD shock, the risk of death remained elevated (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.04 to 4.37; P<0.001). The most common cause of death among patients who received any ICD shock was progressive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure in whom an ICD is implanted for primary prevention, those who receive shocks for any arrhythmia have a substantially higher risk of death than similar patients who do not receive such shocks.

No benefit from defibrillation threshold testing in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial).

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation predicts clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Defibrillation testing is often performed during insertion of ICDs to confirm shock efficacy. There are no prospective data to suggest that this procedure improves outcomes when modern ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden death. METHODS: The analysis included the 811 patients who were randomized to the ICD arm of the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) and had the device implanted. The DFT testing protocol in SCD-HeFT was designed to limit shock testing in a primary prevention heart failure population. RESULTS: Baseline DFT data were available for 717 patients (88.4%). All 717 patients had a DFT of < or =30 J, the maximum output of the device in this study. The DFT was < or =20 J in 97.8% of patients. There was no survival difference between patients with a lower DFT (< or =10 J, n = 547) and a higher DFT (>10 J, n = 170) (p = 0.41). First shock efficacy was 83.0% for the first clinical ventricular tachyarrhythmia event; there were no differences in shock efficacies when the cohort was subdivided by baseline DFT. CONCLUSIONS: Low baseline DFTs were obtained in patients with stable, optimally treated heart failure during ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death. First shock efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias was high regardless of baseline DFT testing results. Baseline DFT testing did not predict long-term mortality or shock efficacy in this study.