Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming.

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality among patients at risk for fatal arrhythmias, but inappropriate ICD activations are frequent, with potential adverse effects. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1500 patients with a primary-prevention indication to receive an ICD with one of three programming configurations. The primary objective was to determine whether programmed high-rate therapy (with a 2.5-second delay before the initiation of therapy at a heart rate of ≥200 beats per minute) or delayed therapy (with a 60-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute, a 12-second delay at 200 to 249 beats per minute, and a 2.5-second delay at ≥250 beats per minute) was associated with a decrease in the number of patients with a first occurrence of inappropriate antitachycardia pacing or shocks, as compared with conventional programming (with a 2.5-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute and a 1.0-second delay at ≥200 beats per minute). RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 1.4 years, high-rate therapy and delayed ICD therapy, as compared with conventional device programming, were associated with reductions in a first occurrence of inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.34; P<0.001; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.40; P<0.001) and reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.85; P=0.01; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences in procedure-related adverse events among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Programming of ICD therapies for tachyarrhythmias of 200 beats per minute or higher or with a prolonged delay in therapy at 170 beats per minute or higher, as compared with conventional programming, was associated with reductions in inappropriate therapy and all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MADIT-RIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00947310.).

Survival of patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in clinical practice vs clinical trials.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause. RESULTS: The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.

Risk of recurrent cardiac events after onset of menopause in women with congenital long-QT syndrome types 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Women with congenital long-QT syndrome experience an increased risk for cardiac events after the onset of adolescence that is more pronounced among carriers of the LQT2 genotype. We hypothesized that the hormonal changes associated with menopause may affect clinical risk in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a repeated-events analysis to evaluate the risk for recurrent syncope during the menopause transition and postmenopausal periods (5 years before and after the age at onset of menopause, respectively) among 282 LQT1 (n=151) and LQT2 (n=131) women enrolled in the Long-QT Syndrome Registry. Multivariate analysis showed that the risk for recurrent syncope (n=150) among LQT2 women was significantly increased during both menopause transition (hazard ratio, 3.38; P=0.005) and the postmenopausal period (hazard ratio, 8.10; P<0.001) compared with the reproductive period. The risk increase was evident among women who did or did not receive estrogen therapy. In contrast, among LQT1 women, the onset of menopause was associated with a reduction in the risk for recurrent syncope (hazard ratio, 0.19; P=0.05; P=0.02 for genotype-by-menopause interaction). Only 22 women (8%) experienced aborted cardiac arrest or sudden cardiac death during follow-up. The frequency of aborted cardiac arrest/sudden cardiac death showed a similar genotype-specific association with the onset of menopause. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of menopause is associated with a significant increase in the risk of cardiac events (dominated by recurrent episodes of syncope) in LQT2 women, suggesting that careful follow-up and continued long-term therapy are warranted in this population.

Predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT).

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that combined assessment of factors that are associated with favorable reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator therapy (CRT-D) can be used to predict clinical response to the device. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 1761 patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT). Best-subset regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with echocardiographic response (defined as percent reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume 1 year after CRT-D implantation) and to create a response score. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate the CRT-D versus defibrillator-only reduction in the risk of heart failure or death by the response score. Seven factors were identified as associated with echocardiographic response to CRT-D and made up the response score (female sex, nonischemic origin, left bundle-branch block, QRS ≥150 milliseconds, prior hospitalization for heart failure, left ventricular end-diastolic volume ≥125 mL/m(2), and left atrial volume <40 mL/m(2)). Multivariate analysis showed a 13% (P<0.001) increase in the clinical benefit of CRT-D per 1-point increment in the response score (range, 0-14) and a significant direct correlation between risk reduction associated with CRT-D and response score quartiles: Patients in the first quartile did not derive a significant reduction in the risk of heart failure or death with CRT-D (hazard ratio=0.87; P=0.52); patients in the second and third quartiles derived 33% (P=0.04) and 36% (P=0.03) risk reductions, respectively; and patients in the upper quartile experienced a 69% (P<0.001) risk reduction (P for trend=0.005). CONCLUSION: Combined assessment of factors associated with reverse remodeling can be used for improved selection of patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT).

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine whether QRS morphology identifies patients who benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) and whether it influences the risk of primary and secondary end points in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline 12-lead ECGs were evaluated with regard to QRS morphology. Heart failure event or death was the primary end point of the trial. Death, heart failure event, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation were secondary end points. Among 1817 patients with available sinus rhythm ECGs at baseline, there were 1281 (70%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), 228 (13%) with right bundle-branch block, and 308 (17%) with nonspecific intraventricular conduction disturbances. The latter 2 groups were defined as non-LBBB groups. Hazard ratios for the primary end point for comparisons of CRT-D patients versus patients who only received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were significantly (P < 0.001) lower in LBBB patients (0.47; P < 0.001) than in non-LBBB patients (1.24; P = 0.257). The risk of ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or death was decreased significantly in CRT-D patients with LBBB but not in non-LBBB patients. Echocardiographic parameters showed significantly (P < 0.001) greater reduction in left ventricular volumes and increase in ejection fraction with CRT-D in LBBB than in non-LBBB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and ejection fraction ≤ 30% and LBBB derive substantial clinical benefit from CRT-D: a reduction in heart failure progression and a reduction in the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. No clinical benefit was observed in patients with a non-LBBB QRS pattern (right bundle-branch block or intraventricular conduction disturbances). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to determine whether cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing would reduce the risk of death or heart-failure events in patients with mild cardiac symptoms, a reduced ejection fraction, and a wide QRS complex. METHODS: During a 4.5-year period, we enrolled and followed 1820 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, an ejection fraction of 30% or less, a QRS duration of 130 msec or more, and New York Heart Association class I or II symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive CRT plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (1089 patients) or an ICD alone (731 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause or a nonfatal heart-failure event (whichever came first). Heart-failure events were diagnosed by physicians who were aware of the treatment assignments, but they were adjudicated by a committee that was unaware of assignments. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 2.4 years, the primary end point occurred in 187 of 1089 patients in the CRT-ICD group (17.2%) and 185 of 731 patients in the ICD-only group (25.3%) (hazard ratio in the CRT-ICD group, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.84; P=0.001). The benefit did not differ significantly between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The superiority of CRT was driven by a 41% reduction in the risk of heart-failure events, a finding that was evident primarily in a prespecified subgroup of patients with a QRS duration of 150 msec or more. CRT was associated with a significant reduction in left ventricular volumes and improvement in the ejection fraction. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall risk of death, with a 3% annual mortality rate in each treatment group. Serious adverse events were infrequent in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: CRT combined with ICD decreased the risk of heart-failure events in relatively asymptomatic patients with a low ejection fraction and wide QRS complex. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00180271.)

Multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: reduce inappropriate therapy (MADIT-RIT): background, rationale, and clinical protocol.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality due to cardiac arrhythmias in high-risk cardiac patients. However, inappropriate therapies caused predominantly by supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVTs) remain a significant side effect of ICD therapy despite medical treatment, affecting 8-40% of patients. The MADIT-RIT is a global, prospective, randomized, nonblinded, three-arm, multicenter clinical investigation to be performed in the Unites States, Europe, Canada, Israel and Japan, and will utilize approximately 90 centers with plan to enroll 1500 patients programmed to three treatment arms. The objective of the MADIT-RIT trial is to determine if dual-chamber ICD or CRT-D devices with high rate cutoff (MADIT-RIT-Arm B) and/or long delay in combination with detection enhancements (MADIT-RIT-Arm C) are associated with fewer patients experiencing inappropriate therapies than standard programming (MADIT-RIT-Arm A) during postimplant follow-up of patients with indication for primary prevention device therapy. This paper describes design and analytic plan for the MADIT-RIT trial.

Relationship between improvement in left ventricular dyssynchrony and contractile function and clinical outcome with cardiac resynchronization therapy: the MADIT-CRT trial.

AIMS: To assess long-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony and contractile function, by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography, compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) only in MADIT-CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 761 patients in New York Heart Association I/II, ejection fraction ≤30%, and QRS ≥130 ms [n = 434, CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D), n = 327, ICD] with echocardiographic studies available at baseline and 12 months. Dyssynchrony was determined as the standard deviation of time to peak transverse strain between 12 segments of apical four- and two-chamber views, and contractile function as global longitudinal strain (GLS) by averaging longitudinal strain over these 12 segments. We compared changes in LV dyssynchrony and contractile function between treatment groups and assessed relationships between these changes over the first year and subsequent outcomes (median post 1-year follow-up = 14.9 months). Mean changes in LV dyssynchrony and contractile function measured by GLS in the overall population were, respectively, -29 ± 83 ms and -1 ± 2.9%. However, both LV dyssynchrony (CRT-D: -47 ± 83 ms vs. ICD: -6 ± 76 ms, P < 0.001) and contractile function (CRT-D: -1.4 ± 3.1% vs. ICD: -0.4 ± 2.5%, P < 0.001) improved to a greater extent in the CRT-D group compared with the ICD-only group. A greater improvement in dyssynchrony and contractile function at 1 year was associated with lower rates of the subsequent primary outcome of death or heart failure, adjusting for baseline dyssynchrony and contractile function, treatment arm, ischaemic status, and change in LV end-systolic volume. Each 20 ms decrease in LV dyssynchrony was associated with a 7% reduction in the primary outcome (P = 0.047); each 1% improvement in GLS over the 12-month period was associated with a 24% reduction in the primary outcome (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy resulted in a significant improvement in both LV dyssynchrony and contractile function measured by GLS compared with ICD only and these improvements were associated with better subsequent outcomes.

Time-dependent benefit of preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy after myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Cardiac remodelling is a progressive process after myocardial infarction (MI). However, currently there are no data regarding the effect of s:elapsed time from MI on the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). The present study was designed to evaluate the relationship between elapsed time from MI and the benefit of preventive CRT-D therapy in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). METHODS AND RESULTS: The risk of heart failure (HF) or death as a function of elapsed time from MI to enrolment, by treatment with CRT-D vs. implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-only therapy, was assessed among 704 ICM patients with a documented MI enrolled in MADIT-CRT, and separately in a subset of ICM patients without a documented prior MI (n = 237). In ICD patients, the adjusted risk of HF or death increased by 4% (P = 0.01) for each year elapsed from MI. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with remote MI [categorized at the median value (≥8 years)] derived a significantly greater benefit from CRT-D [HR = 0.42 (P < 0.001)] than those with a more recent MI [HR = 1.26 (P = 0.35); P-value for interaction <0.001]. Consistently, the benefit of CRT-D was directly related to increasing quartiles of elapsed time from MI [Q(1) (<3 years): HR = 1.67; P = 0.20, Q(2) (3-8 years): HR = 1.12; P = 0.71, Q(3) (8-15 years): HR = 0.47; P = 0.02, and Q(4) (≥15 years): HR = 0.38; P = 0.001]. The ICM subgroup with no documented MI also derived enhanced benefit from CRT-D (HR = 0.43; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, the risk of HF or death and the magnitude of CRT-D benefit are directly related to elapsed time from MI.

Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT.

AIMS: There are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively). METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n = 1046) and non-ICM (n = 774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34% (P = 0.001) and 44% (P = 0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction = 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14% and 18 ± 10% reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16% and 24 ± 12% reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response. CONCLUSION: Mildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.

Long-term benefit of primary prevention with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: an extended 8-year follow-up study of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II.

BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II) showed a significant 31 reduction in the risk of death with primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy during a median follow-up of 1.5 years. However, currently there are no data on the long-term efficacy of primary defibrillator therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: MADIT-II enrolled 1232 patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction who were randomized to ICD and non-ICD medical therapy and were followed up through November 2001. For the present long-term study, we acquired posttrial mortality data through March 2009 for all study participants (median follow-up, 7.6 years). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was performed to calculate the hazard ratio for ICD versus non-ICD therapy during long-term follow-up. At 8 years of follow-up, the cumulative probability of all-cause mortality was 49 among patients treated with an ICD compared with 62 among non-ICD patients (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ICD therapy was associated with a significant long-term survival benefit (hazard ratio for 0- through 8-year mortality=0.66 [95 confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.78]; P<0.001). Treatment with an ICD was shown to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death during the early phase of the extended follow-up period (0 through 4 years: hazard ratio=0.61 [95 confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.76]; P<0.001) and with continued life-saving benefit during the late phase of follow-up (5 through 8 years: hazard ratio=0.74 [95 confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.96]; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a sustained 8-year survival benefit with primary ICD therapy in the MADIT-II population.

Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on reverse remodeling and relation to outcome: multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) plus implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduced the risk of death or heart failure event in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, and wide QRS complex compared with an ICD only. We assessed echocardiographic changes in patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) to evaluate whether the improvement in outcomes with CRT plus an ICD was associated with favorable alterations in cardiac size and function. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,820 patients were randomly assigned to CRT plus an ICD or to an ICD only in a 3:2 ratio. Echocardiographic studies were obtained at baseline and 12 months later in 1,372 patients. We compared changes in cardiac size and performance between treatment groups and assessed the relationship between these changes over the first year, as well as subsequent outcomes. Compared with the ICD-only group, the CRT-plus-ICD group had greater improvement in left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (-26.2 versus -7.4 mL/m(2)), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (-28.7 versus -9.1 mL/m(2)), left ventricular ejection fraction (11% versus 3%), left atrial volume index (-11.9 versus -4.7 mL/m(2)), and right ventricular fractional area change (8% versus 5%; P<0.001 for all). Improvement in end-diastolic volume at 1 year was predictive of subsequent death or heart failure, with adjustment for baseline covariates and treatment group; each 10% decrease in end-diastolic volume was associated with a 40% reduction in risk (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CRT resulted in significant improvement in cardiac size and performance compared with an ICD-only strategy in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure. Improvement in these measures accounted for the outcomes benefit. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

Mechanisms of ventricular fibrillation initiation in MADIT II patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: The availability of stored intracardiac electrograms from implantable defibrillators (ICDs) has facilitated the study of the mechanisms of ventricular tachyarrhythmia onset. This study aimed to determine the patterns of initiation of ventricular fibrillation (VF) in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients along with associated electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters and clinical characteristics. METHODS: Examination of stored electrograms enabled us to evaluate the rhythm preceding each episode of VF and to calculate (intracardiac) ECG parameters including QT, QT peak (QTp), coupling interval, and prematurity index. RESULTS: Sixty episodes of VF among 29 patients (mean age 64.4 +/- 2.5 years) were identified. A single ventricular premature complex (VPC) initiated 46 (77%) episodes whereas a short-long-short (SLS) sequence accounted for 14 (23%) episodes. Of the 29 patients studied, 23 patients had VF episodes preceded by a VPC only, two patients with SLS only, and four patients with both VPC and SLS-initiated episodes. There were no significant differences between initiation patterns in regards to the measured ECG parameters; a faster heart rate with SLS initiation (mean RR prior to VF of 655 +/- 104 ms for SLS and 744 +/- 222 ms for VPC) approached significance (P = 0.06). The two patients with SLS only were not on beta-blockers compared to 83% of the VPC patients. CONCLUSION: Ventricular fibrillation is more commonly initiated by a VPC than by a SLS sequence among the MADIT II population. Current pacing modes designed to prevent bradycardia and pause-dependent arrhythmias are unlikely to decrease the incidence of VPC-initiated episodes of VF.

Causes and consequences of heart failure after prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial II.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy may be associated with an increased risk for heart failure (HF). The present study evaluated the frequency, causes, and consequences of HF after ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the clinical factors and outcomes associated with postenrollment HF events in 1218 patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of ICD:conventional therapy for first and recurrent HF events were 1.39 (P=0.02) and 1.58 (P<0.001), respectively. The risk was increased among patients who received single-chamber or dual-chamber ICDs. Development of HF was associated with an increased mortality risk (HR, 3.80; P<0.001). Among patients who received a single-chamber ICD, there was a similar survival benefit before and after the development of HF (HR, 0.59 and 0.61, respectively; P=0.92 for difference), whereas among patients with dual-chamber devices, there was a significant reduction in survival benefit after HF (HR, 0.26 and 0.83, respectively; P=0.01 for difference). Within the defibrillator arm of the trial, patients who received life-prolonging therapy from the ICD had an increased risk for first and recurrent HF events (HR, 1.90; P=0.01 and 1.74; P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic ischemic heart disease who are treated with either single-chamber or dual-chamber ICDs have improved survival but an increased risk of HF. The present data suggest that ICD therapy transforms sudden death risk to a subsequent HF risk. These findings should direct more attention to the prevention of HF in patients who receive an ICD.

Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. This randomized trial was designed to evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in such patients. METHODS: Over the course of four years, we enrolled 1232 patients with a prior myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.30 or less. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive an implantable defibrillator (742 patients) or conventional medical therapy (490 patients). Invasive electrophysiological testing for risk stratification was not required. Death from any cause was the end point. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics at base line and the prevalence of medication use at the time of the last follow-up visit were similar in the two treatment groups. During an average follow-up of 20 months, the mortality rates were 19.8 percent in the conventional-therapy group and 14.2 percent in the defibrillator group. The hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause in the defibrillator group as compared with the conventional-therapy group was 0.69 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.93; P=0.016). The effect of defibrillator therapy on survival was similar in subgroup analyses stratified according to age, sex, ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, and the QRS interval. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a prior myocardial infarction and advanced left ventricular dysfunction, prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator improves survival and should be considered as a recommended therapy.

Prognostic value of location and type of myocardial infarction in the setting of advanced left ventricular dysfunction.

Location (anterior) and type (Q wave) of myocardial infarction (MI) might be considered of prognostic significance when predicting mortality. However, there are limited data regarding the prognostic significance of type and location of MI in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function. In 1,221 patients in the MADIT II, Q-wave MI was observed in 763 patients (62%), 115 (10%) had non-Q-wave MI, and 343 (28%) had conduction abnormalities. In patients with Q-wave MI, anterior MI was present in 430 (57%), inferior in 155 (20%), and combined in 178 (23%) patients. Study end points included all-cause mortality, hospitalization or death due to worsening congestive heart failure, and episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation requiring implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model predicting mortality, the following clinical variables entered the predictive model at a p value <0.10: treatment (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator vs conventional therapy), age dichotomized at 65 years, angina pectoris, ejection fraction dichotomized at 25%, serum urea nitrogen dichotomized at 25 mg/dl, and beta-blocker use. After adjustment for these covariates, risk of mortality was not significantly different in non-Q-wave MI versus Q-wave MI. However, when analyzing location of MI, inferior wall MI was associated with a significantly (hazard ratio 1.58, p = 0.048) higher risk of mortality than anterior wall MI. In addition, patients with conduction abnormalities had a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.36, p = 0.088) than patients with anterior wall MI. In conclusion, in the setting of severely depressed ejection fraction (< or =30%), inferior wall MI was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality than anterior wall MI.

Improved survival associated with prophylactic implantable defibrillators in elderly patients with prior myocardial infarction and depressed ventricular function: a MADIT-II substudy.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to evaluate the mortality benefit from defibrillator therapy in eligible elderly patients. Effective primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with implantable cardioverter defibrillators is well demonstrated in patients with coronary disease and depressed ventricular function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1,232 patients enrolled with prior infarct and left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.30, 204 were > or = 75 years old. Of these 204 patients, 121 underwent defibrillator implant. Relative to the younger patients, those > or = 75 years had a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), widened QRS, and lower use of beta-blockers and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Relevant clinical covariates were similar in elderly patients randomized to conventional and defibrillator therapy. The hazard ratio for the mortality risk in patients > or = 75 years assigned to defibrillator implant compared with those in conventional therapy was 0.56 (95 confidence interval 0.29-1.08; P = 0.08) after a mean follow-up of 17.2 months. Comparatively, the hazard ratio in patients < 75 years assigned to defibrillator implant was 0.63 (0.45-0.88; P = 0.01) after 20.8 months. Elderly patients had similar reductions in quality of life (QoL) regardless of treatment randomization. Scores through Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI) Questionnaire changes from baseline to 1 year were -0.22 for patients with conventional therapy versus -0.20 for patients with ICD, and -0.36 versus -0.27 at 2 years, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSION: The implantable defibrillator is associated with an equivalent reduction of mortality in elderly and younger patients, with no compromise in the QoL in the older age subjects.

Ventricular arrhythmia storms in postinfarction patients with implantable defibrillators for primary prevention indications: a MADIT-II substudy.

BACKGROUND: Much of prognostic implications of ventricular arrhythmia storms remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the risk associated with electrical storm in patients with defibrillators in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II) study. METHODS: Electrical storm was defined as > or =3 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 24 hours. RESULTS: Of the 719 patients who received internal cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implants and had follow-up in the MADIT-II, 27 patients (4%) had electrical storm, 142 (20%) had isolated episodes of VT/VF, and the remaining 550 patients had no ICD-recorded VT events. Baseline clinical characteristics among the groups were similar. Patients who experienced electrical storm had a significantly higher risk of death. After adjustments for relevant clinical covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) for death in the first 3 months after the storm event was 17.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0 to 39.5, P <.01) in comparison with those with no VT/VF. This risk continued even after 3 months for those with electrical storm (HR of 3.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 9.8, P = .02). Study patients with isolated VT/VF episodes also were at an increased risk of dying (HR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.0, P <.01) when compared with patients without VT/VF episodes. Statistically significant predictors of electrical storm were interim postenrollment coronary events (myocardial infarction or angina) HR 3.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 8.1, P = .02) and isolated VT or VF HR 9.2 (95% CI 4.0 to 20.9, P <.01). CONCLUSION: Postinfarction patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction in whom electrical storm developed have significantly higher mortality than patients with only isolated VT/VF as well as those without any episodes of VT/VF. Patients who experienced postenrollment ventricular arrhythmias and/or interim coronary events during follow-up were at higher risk for VT/VF storms.

Relations among renal function, risk of sudden cardiac death, and benefit of the implanted cardiac defibrillator in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.

Implanted cardioverter defibrillator therapy has been shown to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. However, data on the relation between renal function and SCD in this population are limited, and the effect of renal dysfunction on the implanted cardioverter defibrillator benefit has not been determined. We performed a retrospective analysis of the outcome associated with renal dysfunction, as determined by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II. Multivariate analysis in conventionally treated patients showed that for each 10-U reduction in eGFR, the risk of all-cause mortality and SCD increased by 16% (p = 0.005) and 17% (p = 0.03), respectively. Defibrillator therapy was associated with a survival benefit in each eGFR category of > or = 35 ml/min/1.73 m2 (overall risk reduction for all-cause mortality 32%, p = 0.01 and for SCD 66%, p < 0.001). However, no implanted cardioverter defibrillator benefit was shown among patients with an eGFR < 35 ml/min/1.73 m2 (all-cause mortality hazard ratio 1.09, p = 0.84; SCD hazard ratio 0.95, p = 0.95). In conclusion, in patients with high-risk cardiac disease enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II, a significant increase was found in the risk of SCD with declining renal function. Defibrillator therapy was associated with a significant survival benefit among the study patients with mild to moderate or no renal disease, but no benefit was shown among patients with more advanced renal dysfunction.

Cigarette smoking and the risk of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias in high-risk cardiac patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

INTRODUCTION: Nicotine elevates serum catecholamine concentration and is therefore potentially arrhythmogenic. However, the effect of cigarette smoking on arrhythmic risk in coronary heart disease patients is not well established. METHODS AND RESULTS: The risk of appropriate and inappropriate defibrillator therapy by smoking status was analyzed in 717 patients who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II. Compared with patients who had quit smoking before study entry (past smokers) and patients who had never smoked (never smokers), patients who continued smoking (current smokers) were significantly younger and generally had more favorable baseline clinical characteristics. Despite this, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for appropriate ICD therapy for fast ventricular tachycardia (at heart rates >or=180 b.p.m) or ventricular fibrillation was highest among current smokers (HR = 2.11 [95% CI 1.11-3.99]) and intermediate among past smokers (HR = 1.57 [95% CI 0.95-2.58]), as compared with never smokers (P for trend = 0.02). Current smokers also exhibited a higher risk of inappropriate ICD shocks (HR = 2.93 [95% CI 1.30-6.63]) than past (HR = 1.91 [95% CI 0.97-3.77]) and never smokers (P for trend = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction, continued cigarette smoking is associated with a significant increase in the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and inappropriate ICD shocks induced by rapid supraventricular arrhythmias. Our findings stress the importance of complete smoking cessation in this high-risk population.