ABSTRACT
AIMS: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients have an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Four implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recommendation algorithms are available The International Task Force Consensus ('ITFC'), an ITFC modification by Orgeron et al. ('mITFC'), the AHA/HRS/ACC guideline for VA management ('AHA'), and the HRS expert consensus statement ('HRS'). This study aims to validate and compare the performance of these algorithms in ARVC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified 617 definite ARVC patients (38.5 ± 15.1 years, 52.4% male, 39.2% prior sustained VA) according to four algorithms. Clinical performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, ROC-analysis, and decision curve analysis for any sustained VA and for fast VA (>250 b.p.m.). During 6.4 [2.8-11.5] years follow-up, 282 (45.7%) patients experienced any sustained VA, and 63 (10.2%) fast VA. For any sustained VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (94.0-97.8% vs. 76.7-83.5%), but lower specificity (15.9-32.0% vs. 42.7%-60.1%). Similarly, for fast VA, ITFC and mITFC provide higher sensitivity than AHA and HRS (95.2-97.1% vs. 76.7-78.4%) but lower specificity (42.7-43.1 vs. 76.7-78.4%). Decision curve analysis showed ITFC and mITFC to be superior for a 5-year sustained VA risk ICD indication threshold between 5-25% or 2-9% for fast VA. CONCLUSION: The ITFC and mITFC provide the highest protection rates, whereas AHA and HRS decrease unnecessary ICD placements. ITFC or mITFC should be used if we consider the 5-year threshold for ICD indication to lie within 5-25% for sustained VA or 2-9% for fast VA. These data will inform decision-making for ICD placement in ARVC.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia , Defibrillators, Implantable , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/etiology , Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/complications , Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/diagnosis , Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/therapy , Consensus , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/etiology , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/prevention & control , Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
Heart failure is a chronic illness with a high prevalence and mortality rate. The aim of this article is to give an update on new treatment options for heart failure and the value of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure. Based on LVEF, three groups of heart failure can be distinguished: (1) heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤ 40%), (2) heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF 41-49%) and (3) heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF ≥ 50%). The treatment of HFrEF consists of four pillars, the application of which leads to symptom reduction and better survival: (1) angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-i) or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), (2) ß-blocker, (3) mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) and (4) sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. ACE-I, ß-blocker and MRA can be considered as treatment of HFmrEF. The treatment of HFpEF mainly focuses on symptom reduction.