Primary prevention with a defibrillator: are therapies always really optimized before implantation?

AIMS: Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30-35% is widely accepted as a cut-off for primary prevention with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy supposedly on optimal medical therapy. This study reports evolutions of LVEF and treatments of patients implanted in our institution with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, after 2 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 84 patients with LVEF under 35% implanted between 2005 and 2007, 28 (33%) had improved their LVEF >35% after the 2 years of follow-up. During this period, even if Beta-blockers (98%) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers (95%) were already initially prescribed, treatments were significantly optimized with improvement of maximal doses of beta-blockers and RAS blockers at 2 year follow-up compared with initial prescription (62 vs. 37% and 68 vs. 45%, respectively). In patients with improved LVEF, a trend toward a better treatment optimization and revascularization procedures (in the sub-group of ischaemic patients) were observed compared with non-improved LVEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients with prophylactic ICD, one-third of them have improved their LVEF after a 2 year follow-up. Despite an optimal medical therapy at the time of implantation, we were able to further improve the maximal treatment doses after implantation. This study highlights the issue of what should be considered as 'optimal' therapy and the possibility of improvement of LVEF related to a real optimized treatment before implantation.

Apical aneurysm and myocardial bridging in a patient with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: association or consequence of the myocardial bridging?

The identification of high-risk patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a challenging issue, since major risk factors sometimes lack specificity. We report the case of a patient with HC and association of apical aneurysm and myocardial bridging who had been initially not implanted because she had only one major risk factor. She subsequently experienced a sustained ventricular tachycardia that finally motivated the implantation. We conclude that it is never an easy decision to implant a preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Nevertheless, additional criteria for a better selection of patients who would benefit from an ICD implant are certainly useful.

Comparison of outcomes in patients with abandoned versus extracted implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading and/or occurrence of lead malfunction, the optimal approach to managing abandoned leads remains debated. AIMS: To determine the rate and type of complications related to either abandoned or extracted ICD leads. METHODS: Patients with abandoned or extracted leads were identified retrospectively. Patient medical records were reviewed to assess long-term lead or device malfunction, defibrillation test values before and after lead abandonment or extraction, and appropriateness of delivered shocks and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads. RESULTS: A total of 58 ICD patients with 47 extracted and 34 abandoned leads were identified. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 2.6 years, the defibrillation test was not affected by either abandoned or extracted leads (23.4 ± 6.6 J vs 25.4 ± 4.9 J, respectively; P = 0.24). There were no differences in the number of ICD-related surgical procedures after extracting versus abandoning leads (22% vs 12%, respectively; P = 0.3) or in the thromboembolic event rate (7.7% vs 6.3%; P = 0.83). During follow-up, no differences in the occurrence of major complications or appropriate/inappropriate shocks were observed between patients with or without abandoned leads. CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in rates of immediate or medium-term complications between extracting versus abandoning leads. Lead abandonment remains an alternative and safe option when extraction does not appear mandatory according to the age of the leads or experience of the operating centre.

[Management of a first recent episode of atrial fibrillation in clinical practice]. / Que faire devant un premier passage récent en fibrillation atriale?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent supraventricular arrhythmias with an approximative prevalence of 1 % in the general population and above 6 % in the elderly. Management of a first AF episode is different depending on the clinical status of patients. Practice guidelines developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society are available for the management of these patients. A four-step decisional scheme must be followed in the management of a first recent AF episode: need for a short- and long-term anticoagulation, define a rythmologic strategy (rhythm or rate control), select the weapon (drug, device or ablation) and reconsider the strategy if needed. After a first uncomplicated paroxysmal AF episode, guidelines recommend that prescription of antiarrhythmics must be avoided and anticoagulation is optional. After a first persistent AF episode, guidelines recommend to either respect or reduce the arrhythmia. Prescription of antiarrhythmics and anticoagulation is also optional depending on the patients condition. In case of the AF reduction decision, anticoagulation must be tailored preliminary to this reduction. AF recurrence rate varies depending on the patients condition, and the risk of stroke assessed by the CHADS(2) score might be similarly considered for both paroxysmal and persistent AF.