Implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in North America and Europe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are critical for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). This study aims to identify cross-continental differences in utilization of primary prevention ICDs and survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ARVC. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of ARVC patients without prior VA enrolled in clinical registries from 11 countries throughout Europe and North America. Patients were classified according to whether they received treatment in North America or Europe and were further stratified by baseline predicted VA risk into low- (<10%/5 years), intermediate- (10%-25%/5 years), and high-risk (>25%/5 years) groups. Differences in ICD implantation and survival free from sustained VA events (including appropriate ICD therapy) were assessed. RESULTS: One thousand ninety-eight patients were followed for a median of 5.1 years; 554 (50.5%) received a primary prevention ICD, and 286 (26.0%) experienced a first VA event. After adjusting for baseline risk factors, North Americans were more than three times as likely to receive ICDs {hazard ratio (HR) 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5, 3.8]} but had only mildly increased risk for incident sustained VA [HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.8)]. North Americans without ICDs were at higher risk for incident sustained VA [HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3, 3.4)] than Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: North American ARVC patients were substantially more likely than Europeans to receive primary prevention ICDs across all arrhythmic risk strata. A lower rate of ICD implantation in Europe was not associated with a higher rate of VA events in those without ICDs.

Incremental value of the signal-averaged ECG for diagnosing arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is currently diagnosed using a combination of clinical features, imaging, electrocardiography, and genetic investigations. An abnormal signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) is defined as a minor diagnostic criterion by the 2010 Task Force Criteria, but doubts remain about the value of this investigation. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the utility of the SAECG in diagnosing ARVC using the Canadian Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy Registry, a population representative registry of probands with ARVC and relatives, less influenced by referral bias. METHODS: Probands with ARVC and family members from the Canadian Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy Registry underwent phenotype review. SAECG parameters were compared individually and in combination between those with varying degrees of ARVC severity and healthy controls (family members of probands with ARVC and unexplained sudden death, free of evidence of cardiac disease). RESULTS: A total of 196 patients with ARVC and 205 controls were included (mean age 44 ± 15 years; 186 of 401 men [46%]). SAECG abnormalities were seen in 83 of 205 controls (40%), 33 of 68 patients with ARVC and mild disease (51%), and 31 of 42 with severe disease (74%). The SAECG associated strongly with imaging abnormalities (major: odds ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval 1.3-6.9; minor: odds ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 0.7-16.5) but not with other aspects of phenotype. Patients carrying pathogenic variants but with minimal phenotype had similar SAECGs to healthy controls (filtered QRS duration 111.2 ± 11.2 ms vs 111 ± 7.6 ms, P = .93; duration of low amplitude signals < 40 µV 32.3 ± 8.9 ms vs 34.2 ± 7.2 ms, P = .32; root mean square of the terminal 40 ms of the filtered QRS complex 43.1 ± 25.2 ms vs 38.2 ± 20.2 ms, P = .38). CONCLUSION: The SAECG appears to be a surrogate marker for structural abnormalities seen on imaging in those with ARVC. Great caution is required in interpreting SAECG findings in those without other corroborating evidence of an ARVC phenotype.

Arrhythmic risk prediction in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: external validation of the arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy risk calculator.

AIMS: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) causes ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). In 2019, a risk prediction model that estimates the 5-year risk of incident VAs in ARVC was developed (ARVCrisk.com). This study aimed to externally validate this prediction model in a large international multicentre cohort and to compare its performance with the risk factor approach recommended for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use by published guidelines and expert consensus. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a retrospective cohort of 429 individuals from 29 centres in North America and Europe, 103 (24%) experienced sustained VA during a median follow-up of 5.02 (2.05-7.90) years following diagnosis of ARVC. External validation yielded good discrimination [C-index of 0.70 (95% confidence interval-CI 0.65-0.75)] and calibration slope of 1.01 (95% CI 0.99-1.03). Compared with the three published consensus-based decision algorithms for ICD use in ARVC (Heart Rhythm Society consensus on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, International Task Force consensus statement on the treatment of ARVC, and American Heart Association guidelines for VA and SCD), the risk calculator performed better with a superior net clinical benefit below risk threshold of 35%. CONCLUSION: Using a large independent cohort of patients, this study shows that the ARVC risk model provides good prognostic information and outperforms other published decision algorithms for ICD use. These findings support the use of the model to facilitate shared decision making regarding ICD implantation in the primary prevention of SCD in ARVC.