Long-Term Outcomes of Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

A randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for suppression of ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy: The VANISH2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with prior myocardial infarction is associated with adverse quality of life and clinical outcomes, despite the presence of implanted defibrillators (ICDs). Suppression of recurrent VT can be accomplished with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or catheter ablation. The Ventricular Tachycardia Antiarrhythmics or Ablation In Structural Heart Disease 2 (VANISH2) trial is designed to determine whether ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line therapy for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. METHODS: The VANISH2 trial enrolls patients with prior myocardial infarction and VT (with one of: ≥1 ICD shock; ≥3 episodes treated with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and symptoms; ≥5 episodes treated with ATP regardless of symptoms; ≥3 episodes within 24 hours; or sustained VT treated with electrical cardioversion or pharmacologic conversion). Enrolled patients are classified as either sotalol-eligible, or amiodarone-eligible, and then are randomized to either catheter ablation or to that antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with randomization stratified by drug-eligibility group. Drug therapy, catheter ablation procedures and ICD programming are standardized. All patients will be followed until two years after randomization. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality at any time, appropriate ICD shock after 14 days, VT storm after 14 days, and treated sustained VT below detection of the ICD after 14 days. The outcomes will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle using survival analysis techniques RESULTS: The results of the VANISH2 trial are intended to provide data to support clinical decisions on how to suppress VT for patients with prior myocardial infarction. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02830360.

Randomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and can be challenging to treat. Pharmacologically based rhythm control of AF has not proven to be superior to rate control. Ablation-based rhythm control was compared with rate control to evaluate if clinical outcomes in patients with HF and AF could be improved. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded outcome evaluation using a central adjudication committee. Patients with high-burden paroxysmal (>4 episodes in 6 months) or persistent (duration <3 years) AF, New York Heart Association class II to III HF, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide) were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control or rate control. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and all HF events, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction, 6-minute walk test, and NT-proBNP. Quality of life was measured using the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire and the AF Effect on Quality of Life. The primary analysis was time-to-event using Cox proportional hazards modeling. The trial was stopped early because of a determination of apparent futility by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: From December 1, 2011, to January 20, 2018, 411 patients were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control (n=214) or rate control (n=197). The primary outcome occurred in 50 (23.4%) patients in the ablation-based rhythm-control group and 64 (32.5%) patients in the rate-control group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.49-1.03]; P=0.066). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased in the ablation-based group (10.1±1.2% versus 3.8±1.2%, P=0.017), 6-minute walk distance improved (44.9±9.1 m versus 27.5±9.7 m, P=0.025), and NT-proBNP demonstrated a decrease (mean change -77.1% versus -39.2%, P<0.0001). Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire demonstrated greater improvement in the ablation-based rhythm-control group (least-squares mean difference of -5.4 [95% CI, -10.5 to -0.3]; P=0.0036), as did the AF Effect on Quality of Life score (least-squares mean difference of 6.2 [95% CI, 1.7-10.7]; P=0.0005). Serious adverse events were observed in 50% of patients in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-burden AF and HF, there was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality or HF events with ablation-based rhythm control versus rate control; however, there was a nonsignificant trend for improved outcomes with ablation-based rhythm control over rate control. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01420393.

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia). DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255). SETTING: The ATLAS trial. PATIENTS: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035). LIMITATION: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.

Comparative effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy by location of myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Complexity of the ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate and the size and thickness of infarction area border zones differ based on location of myocardial infarctions (MIs). These differences may translate into heterogeneity in the effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to examine the influence of infarct location on the effectiveness of VT ablation in comparison with escalated pharmacological therapy in patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: VANISH trial participants were categorized based on the presence or absence of an inferior MI scar. Inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox models were calculated for each subgroup. Of 259 randomized patients (median age 69.8 years, 7.0% women), 135 had an inferior MI and 124 had a non-inferior MI. Among patients with an inferior MI, no statistically significant difference in the composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock, and VT storm was detected between treatment arms [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-1.20]. In contrast, patients with non-inferior MIs had a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the primary outcome with ablation (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.86). In a sensitivity analysis of anterior MI patients (n = 83), a trend towards a reduction in the primary outcome with ablation was detected (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23-1.09). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of VT ablation versus escalated AADs varies based on the location of the MI. Patients with MI scars located only in non-inferior regions of the ventricles derive greater benefit from VT ablation in comparison to escalation of AADs in reducing VT-related events.

Ventricular tachycardia characteristics and outcomes with catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic therapy: insights from the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Catheter ablation is superior to escalated antiarrhythmic drugs among patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) and prior myocardial infarction (MI). However, it is uncertain whether clinical VT characteristics, should influence choice of therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether presentation with electrical storm and the clinical VT cycle length predicted response to ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients enrolled in the Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation vs. Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischaemic Heart Disease (VANISH) trial were included. The association between VT cycle length and presentation with electrical storm and the primary outcome of death, subsequent VT storm or appropriate ICD shock was evaluated. Among the study population of 259 patients, escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy had worse outcomes for those presenting with a VT cycle length >400 ms [<150 b.p.m., 89/259, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7 (1.02-3.13)]. This effect was more pronounced among those taking amiodarone at baseline [HR of 2.22 (1.19-4.16)]. Presentation with VT storm (32/259) did not affect the primary outcome between groups. However, those presenting with VT storm on amiodarone had a trend towards worse outcomes with escalated antiarrhythmic therapy [HR 4.31 (0.55-33.93)]. CONCLUSION: The VT cycle length can influence response to either ablation or escalated drug therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. Those with slow VT had improved outcomes with ablation. Patients presenting with electrical storm demonstrated similar outcomes to the overall trial population, with a trend to benefit of catheter ablation, particularly in those on amiodarone.

Feasibility study shows concordance between image-based virtual-heart ablation targets and predicted ECG-based arrhythmia exit-sites.

INTRODUCTION: We recently developed two noninvasive methodologies to help guide VT ablation: population-derived automated VT exit localization (PAVEL) and virtual-heart arrhythmia ablation targeting (VAAT). We hypothesized that while very different in their nature, limitations, and type of ablation targets (substrate-based vs. clinical VT), the image-based VAAT and the ECG-based PAVEL technologies would be spatially concordant in their predictions. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to test this hypothesis in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients in a retrospective feasibility study. METHODS: Four post-infarct patients who underwent LV VT ablation and had pre-procedural LGE-CMRs were enrolled. Virtual hearts with patient-specific scar and border zone identified potential VTs and ablation targets. Patient-specific PAVEL based on a population-derived statistical method localized VT exit sites onto a patient-specific 238-triangle LV endocardial surface. RESULTS: Ten induced VTs were analyzed and 9-exit sites were localized by PAVEL onto the patient-specific LV endocardial surface. All nine predicted VT exit sites were in the scar border zone defined by voltage mapping and spatially correlated with successful clinical lesions. There were 2.3 ± 1.9 VTs per patient in the models. All five VAAT lesions fell within regions ablated clinically. VAAT targets correlated well with 6 PAVEL-predicted VT exit sites. The distance between the center of the predicted VT-exit-site triangle and nearest corresponding VAAT ablation lesion was 10.7 ± 7.3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: VAAT targets are concordant with the patient-specific PAVEL-predicted VT exit sites. These findings support investigation into combining these two complementary technologies as a noninvasive, clinical tool for targeting clinically induced VTs and regions likely to harbor potential VTs.

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias: executive summary.

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

The effect of revascularization on mortality and risk of ventricular arrhythmia in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: There is clear evidence that patients with prior myocardial infarction and a reduced ejection fraction benefit from implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). It is unclear whether this benefit is altered by whether or not revascularization is performed prior to ICD implantation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study following patients who underwent ICD implantation from 2002 to 2014. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and either primary or secondary prevention ICDs were selected for inclusion. Using the electronic medical record, cardiac catheterization data, revascularization status (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass surgery) were recorded. The outcomes were mortality and ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: There were 606 patients included in the analysis. The mean age was 66.3 ± 10.1 years, 11.9% were women, and the mean LVEF was 30.5 ± 12.0, 58.9% had a primary indication for ICD, 82.0% of the cohort had undergone coronary catheterization prior to ICD implantation. In the overall cohort, there were fewer mortality and ventricular arrhythmia events in patients who had undergone prior revascularization. In patients who had an ICD for secondary prevention, revascularization was associated with a decrease in mortality (HR 0.46, 95% CI (0.24, 0.85) p = 0.015), and a trend towards fewer ventricular arrhythmia (HR 0.62, 95% CI (0.38, 1.00) p = 0.051). There was no association between death or ventricular arrhythmia with revascularization in patients with primary prevention ICDs. CONCLUSION: Revascularization may be beneficial in preventing recurrent ventricular arrhythmia, and should be considered as adjunctive therapy to ICD implantation to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS: Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias.

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Effect of Aggressive Blood Pressure Control on the Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial (SMAC-AF [Substrate Modification With Aggressive Blood Pressure Control]).

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has become an important therapy for AF; however, recurrence rates remain high. We proposed to determine whether aggressive blood pressure (BP) lowering prevents recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation in patients with AF and a high symptom burden. METHODS: We randomly assigned 184 patients with AF and a BP >130/80 mm Hg to aggressive BP (target <120/80 mm Hg) or standard BP (target <140/90 mm Hg) treatment before their scheduled AF catheter ablation. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrence of AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter lasting >30 seconds, determined 3 months beyond catheter ablation by a blinded end-point evaluation. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 14 months. At 6 months, the mean systolic BP was 123.2±13.2 mm Hg in the aggressive BP treatment group versus 135.4±15.7 mm Hg (P<0.001) in the standard treatment group. The primary outcome occurred in 106 patients, 54 (61.4%) in the aggressive BP treatment group compared with 52 (61.2%) in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.38; P=0.763). In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the influence of age, patients ≥61 years of age had a lower primary outcome event rate with aggressive BP (hazard ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.97; P=0.013). There was a higher rate of hypotension requiring medication adjustment in the aggressive BP group (26% versus 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, this duration of aggressive BP treatment did not reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation for AF but resulted in more hypotension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00438113.

Localization of ventricular activation origin using patient-specific geometry: Preliminary results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may include induction of VT and localization of VT-exit site. Our aim was to assess localization performance of a novel statistical pace-mapping method and compare it with performance of an electrocardiographic inverse solution. METHODS: Seven patients undergoing ablation of VT (4 with epicardial, 3 with endocardial exit) aided by electroanatomic mapping underwent intraprocedural 120-lead body-surface potential mapping (BSPM). Two approaches to localization of activation origin were tested: (1) A statistical method, based on multiple linear regression (MLR), which required only the conventional 12-lead ECG for a sufficient number of pacing sites with known origin together with patient-specific geometry of the endocardial/epicardial surface obtained by electroanatomic mapping; and (2) a classical deterministic inverse solution for recovering heart-surface potentials, which required BSPM and patient-specific geometry of the heart and torso obtained via computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: For the MLR method, at least 10-15 pacing sites with known coordinates, together with their corresponding 12-lead ECGs, were required to derive reliable patient-specific regression equations, which then enabled accurate localization of ventricular activation with unknown origin. For 4 patients who underwent epicardial mapping, the median of localization error for the MLR was significantly lower than that for the inverse solution (10.6 vs. 27.3 mm, P  =  0.034); a similar result held for 3 patients who underwent endocardial mapping (7.7 vs. 17.1 mm, P  =  0.017). The pooled localization error for all epicardial and endocardial sites was also significantly smaller for the MLR compared with the inverse solution (P  =  0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The novel pace-mapping approach to localizing the origin of ventricular activation offers an easily implementable supplement and/or alternative to the preprocedure inverse solution; its simplicity makes it suitable for real-time applications during clinical catheter-ablation procedures.

Mexiletine or catheter ablation after amiodarone failure in the VANISH trial.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with ischemic heart disease and ventricular tachycardia (VT) refractory to high dose amiodarone, the two most common therapeutic options are adjunctive mexiletine therapy or catheter ablation. There are little existing data on the efficacy of these strategies. We examined the relative efficacy of adjunctive mexiletine and catheter ablation among patients enrolled in the VANISH trial. METHODS: All subjects enrolled in the VANISH trial who had VT refractory to high dose (≥ 300 mg daily) amiodarone at baseline were included. Per protocol, subjects randomized to escalated drug therapy received adjunctive mexiletine. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 259 patients were receiving high-dose amiodarone at baseline and 11 were randomized to escalated therapy with mexiletine and 8 to ablation. The adjunctive mexiletine group had a higher rate of the primary composite outcome (death, VT storm, or appropriate shock) in comparison to catheter ablation (HR 6.87 [2.08-22.8]). Over 90% of the patients in the adjunctive mexiletine/group experienced a primary endpoint during a median 9.2 months' follow-up. There was no difference in the rate of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mexiletine has limited efficacy in the treatment of recurrent VT despite high-dose amiodarone therapy, in patients with ischemic heart disease. Catheter ablation is a superior strategy in this population.

Quality of life with ablation or medical therapy for ventricular arrhythmias: A substudy of VANISH.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients randomized to escalated therapy and those randomized to ablation for ventricular tachycardia in the VANISH trial. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed among VANISH patients at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. Four validated instruments were used: the SF-36, the implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) Concerns questionnaire (ICDC), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). Linear mixed-effects modeling was used for repeated measures with SF-36, HADS, ICDC, and EQ-5D as dependent variables. In a second model, treatment was subdivided by amiodarone use prior to enrollment. RESULTS: HRQoL did not differ significantly between those randomized to ablation or escalated therapy. On subgroup analysis, improvement in SF-36 measures was seen at 6 months in the ablation group for social functioning (63.5-69.3, P = 0.03) and energy/fatigue (43.0-47.9, P = 0.01). ICDC measures showed a reduction in ICD concern in the ablation group at 6 months (10.4-8.7, P = 0.01) and a reduction in ICD concern in the escalated therapy group at 6 months (10.9-9.4, P = 0.04). EQ-5D measures showed a significant improvement in overall health in ablation patients at 6 months (63.4-67.3, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients in the VANISH study randomized to ablation did not have a significant change in quality of life outcomes compared to those randomized to escalated therapy. Some subgroup findings were significant, as those randomized to ablation showed persistent improvement in SF-36 energy/fatigue and ICD concern, and transient improvement in SF-36 social functioning and EQ-5D overall health.

Non-invasive epicardial and endocardial electrocardiographic imaging for scar-related ventricular tachycardia.

Aims: Contact mapping is currently used to guide catheter ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) but usually provides incomplete assessment of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates. This study investigates the feasibility of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) in mapping scar substrates and re-entry circuits throughout the epicardium and endocardium. Methods and results: Four patients undergoing endocardial and epicardial mapping and ablation of scar-related VT had computed tomography scans and a 120-lead electrocardiograms, which were used to compute patient-specific ventricular epicardial and endocardial unipolar electrograms (CEGMs). Native-rhythm CEGMs were used to identify sites of myocardial scar and signal fractionation. Computed electrograms of induced VT were used to localize re-entrant circuits and exit sites. Results were compared to in vivo contact mapping data and epicardium-based ECGi solutions. During native rhythm, an average of 493 ± 18 CEGMs were analysed on each patient. Identified regions of scar and fractionation comprised, respectively, 25 ± 4% and 2 ± 1% of the ventricular surface area. Using a linear mixed-effects model grouped at the level of an individual patient, CEGM voltage and duration were significantly associated with contact bipolar voltage. During induced VT, the inclusion of endocardial layer in ECGi made it possible to identify two epicardial vs. three endocardial VT exit sites among five reconstructed re-entry circuits. Conclusion: Electrocardiographic imaging may be used to reveal sites of signal fractionation and to map short-lived VT circuits. Its capacity to map throughout epicardial and endocardial layers may improve the delineation of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates.

Effect of coronary revascularization on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and recurrent ventricular arrhythmia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) postmyocardial infarction (MI) are a higher risk group with significant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of prior coronary revascularization on clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. METHODS: The VANISH trial randomized 259 patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug-refractory VT to receive escalated medical therapy or catheter ablation. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether patients have undergone prior revascularization procedures. The primary outcome was a composite of death, appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) shock, or VT storm. The secondary outcomes included elements of the primary outcome, hospitalization, and any ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: 190 patients (73%) had prior coronary revascularization. Revascularization group had more men (97% vs 83%; P  =  0.0003) and patients in that group were older (mean age 69.3 ± 7.6 vs 66.7 ± 9.2; P  =  0.04), had more renal insufficiency (22.6% vs 8.7%; P  =  0.01), and were more likely to have an implanted cardiac resynchronization device (23% vs 10%, P  =  0.03) as compared with the nonrevascularized patients. There were no significant differences in baseline medication use. There was a trend toward fewer hospitalizations in the revascularization group (64% vs 77%; P  =  0.07); there were no differences in the individual outcomes of mortality, VT storm, ICD shocks, recurrent MI, or cardiac failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with an ischemic cause for VT, a history of prior coronary revascularization was not associated with a reduction in ventricular arrhythmia or mortality.

Rapid 12-lead automated localization method: Comparison to electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) in patient-specific geometry.

BACKGROUND: Rapid accurate localization of the site of ventricular activation origin during catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias could facilitate the procedure. Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) using large lead sets can localize the origin of ventricular activation. We have developed an automated method to identify sites of early ventricular activation in real time using the 12-lead ECG. We aim to compare the localization accuracy of ECGI and the automated method, identifying pacing sites/VT exit based on a patient-specific model. METHODS: A patient undergoing ablation of VT on the left-ventricular endocardium and epicardium had 120-lead body-surface potential mapping (BSPM) recorded during the procedure. (1) ECGI methodology: The L1-norm regularization was employed to reconstruct epicardial potentials based on patient-specific geometry for localizing endocardial ventricular activation origin. We used the BSPM data corresponding to known endocardial pacing sites and a VT exit site identified by 3D contact mapping to analyze them offline. (2) The automatedmethod: location coordinates of pacing sites together with the time integral of the first 120 ms of the QRS complex of 3 ECG predictors (leads III, V2 and V6) were used to calculate patient-specific regression coefficients to predict the location of unknown sites of ventricular activation origin ("target" sites). Localization error was quantified over all pacing sites in millimeters by comparing the calculated location and the known reference location. RESULTS: Localization was tested for 14 endocardial pacing sites and 1 epicardial VT exit site. For 14 endocardial pacing sites the mean localization error of the automated method was significantly lower than that of the ECGI (8.9 vs. 24.9 mm, p < 0.01), when 10 training pacing sites are used. Emulation of a clinical procedure demonstrated that the automated method achieved localization error of <5 mm for the VT-exit site; while the ECGI approach approximately correlates with the site of VT exit from the scar within a distance of 18.4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The automated method using only 3 ECGs shows promise to localize the origin of ventricular activation as tested by pacing, and the VT-exit site and compares favourably to inverse solution calculation, avoiding cumbersome lead sets. As 12-lead ECG data is acquired by current 3D mapping systems, it is conceivable that the algorithm could be directly incorporated into a mapping system. Further validation in a prospective cohort study is needed to confirm and extend observations reported in this study.

Criteria for ECG detection of acute myocardial ischemia: Sensitivity versus specificity.

BACKGROUND: Criteria for electrocardiographic detection of acute myocardial ischemia recommended by the Consensus Document of ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF consist of two parts: The ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) criteria based on ST elevation (ST↑) in 10 pairs of contiguous leads and the other on ST depression (ST↓) in the same 10 contiguous pairs. Our aim was to assess sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) of these criteria-and to seek their possible improvements-in three databases of 12­lead ECGs. METHODS: We used (1) STAFF III data of controlled ischemic episodes recorded from 99 patients (pts) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving either left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery, right coronary artery (RCA), or left circumflex (LCx) coronary artery. (2) Data from the University of Glasgow for 58 pts with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 58 pts without AMI, as confirmed by MRI. (3) Data from Lund University retrieved from a centralized ECG management system for 100 pts with various pathological ST changes-other than acute coronary occlusion-including ventricular pre-excitation, acute pericarditis, early repolarization syndrome, left ventricular hypertrophy, and left bundle branch block. ST measurements at J-point in ECGs of all 315 pts were obtained automatically on the averaged beat with manual review and the recommended criteria as well as their proposed modifications, were applied. Performance measures included SE, SP, positive predictive value (PPV), and benefit-to-harm ratio (BHR), defined as the ratio of true-positive vs. false-positive detections. RESULTS: We found that the SE of widely-used STEMI criteria can be indeed improved by the additional ST↓ criteria, but at the cost of markedly decreased SP. In contrast, using ST↑ in only 3 additional contiguous pairs of leads (STEMI13) can boost SE without any loss of SP. In the STAFF III database, SE/SP/PPV were 56/98/97% for the STEMI, 79/79/79% for the STEMI with added ST↓ and 67/97/96% for the STEMI13. In the Glasgow database, corresponding SE/SP/PPV were 43/98/96%, 84/90/89%, and 55/98/97%. For the Lund database, SP was 56% for the STEMI, 24% for the STEMI with ST↓, and 56% for the STEMI13. CONCLUSION: Current recommended criteria for detecting acute myocardial ischemia, involving ST↓, boost SE of widely-used STEMI criteria, at the cost of SP. To keep the SP high, we propose either the adjustment of threshold for the added ST↓ criteria or a selective use of ST↓ only in contiguous leads V2 and V3 plus ST↑ in lead pairs (aVL, -III) and (III, -aVL).