Death with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a MADIT-II substudy.

AIMS: There are limited data regarding factors that identify implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients who will experience either ventricular tachyarrhythmic (VTA) or non-arrhythmic (NA) mortality, and the commonly used clinical classification of sudden cardiac death (SCD) vs. non-sudden cardiac death (NSCD) may not be accurate enough. We aimed to correlate clinical adjudication of mortality events to device interrogation data and to identify risk factors for VTA mortality in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 746 patients who received an ICD in MADIT-II, 44 died from cardiac causes and had available interrogation data at the time of death. Sudden cardiac death vs. NSCD was defined by an adjudication committee. Ventricular tachyarrhythmic and NA arrhythmic deaths were categorized by the presence or absence of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) during the terminal event. Mode of death was found to be inaccurate when validated by device interrogation for VTA events: 50% patients adjudicated as SCD did not have a VTA event at the time of death; and 25% of adjudicated NSCD were found to have VT/VF during the mortality event. Multivariate analysis showed that factors independently associated with VTA mortality included: VT/VF >72 h prior to the mortality event [hazard ratio (HR) 8.0; P < 0.001], hospitalization for heart failure (HR 6.7; P = 0.001), and a history of hypertension (HR 4; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Current classification of SCD vs. NSCD fails to identify VTA events at the time of death in a significant proportion of patients, and simple clinical parameters can be used to identify ICD recipients with increased risk for VTA mortality.

One-year follow-up of the prospective registry of patients using the wearable defibrillator (WEARIT-II Registry).

BACKGROUND: The WEARIT-II Registry demonstrated efficacy and safety of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) for at-risk cardiac patients. However, 1-year outcomes in this population have not been reported. METHODS: The WEARIT-II Registry enrolled 2,000 U.S. patients prescribed the WCD. One-year mortality data from start of WCD use were prospectively collected for 1,846 patients (93%). Outcome data were analyzed by disease etiology and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation following WCD use. RESULTS: During 12 months of follow-up, 73 patients died (4%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed differences in all-cause mortality from WCD prescription between patients with ischemic versus nonischemic cardiomyopathy versus congenital/inherited heart disease (4% vs 3% vs 7%, P = 0.013). Patients with ventricular arrhythmia events during WCD use had a higher 1-year mortality (10% vs 3%, P = 0.042). Renal disease, increasing age, prior syncope, and nonbeta-blocker use predicted mortality. One-year mortality was similar in patients who did versus did not receive an ICD following WCD use in ischemic (3% vs 4%, P = 0.470) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (3% vs 3%, P = 0.892). Patients with congenital/inherited heart disease with no implanted ICD had a trend toward a higher rate of mortality than those who received an ICD (8% vs 3%, P = 0.082). Multivariate models confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: One-year follow-up from the WEARIT-II Registry shows an overall good survival in patients prescribed the WCD. Short-term use of WCD allows appropriate risk stratification for decision on an ICD implantation in at-risk ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Congenital/inherited heart disease patients had a higher risk of 1-year mortality even without an implanted ICD post-WCD.

Survival with cardiac-resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) showed that early intervention with cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) in patients with an electrocardiographic pattern showing left bundle-branch block was associated with a significant reduction in heart-failure events over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, as compared with defibrillator therapy alone. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of CRT-D on long-term survival in the MADIT-CRT population. Post-trial follow-up over a median period of 5.6 years was assessed among all 1691 surviving patients (phase 1) and subsequently among 854 patients who were enrolled in post-trial registries (phase 2). All reported analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At 7 years of follow-up after initial enrollment, the cumulative rate of death from any cause among patients with left bundle-branch block was 18% among patients randomly assigned to CRT-D, as compared with 29% among those randomly assigned to defibrillator therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio in the CRT-D group, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.80; P<0.001). The long-term survival benefit of CRT-D in patients with left bundle-branch block did not differ significantly according to sex, cause of cardiomyopathy, or QRS duration. In contrast, CRT-D was not associated with any clinical benefit and possibly with harm in patients without left bundle-branch block (adjusted hazard ratio for death from any cause, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.39; P=0.04; P<0.001 for interaction of treatment with QRS morphologic findings). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that in patients with mild heart-failure symptoms, left ventricular dysfunction, and left bundle-branch block, early intervention with CRT-D was associated with a significant long-term survival benefit. (Funded by Boston Scientific; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00180271, NCT01294449, and NCT02060110.).

The impact of body mass index on the wearable cardioverter defibrillator shock efficacy and patient wear time.

BACKGROUND: The impact of body mass index (BMI) on the shock efficacy and patient adherence among patients using a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is unknown. METHODS: Patients prescribed the WCD between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2013, who experienced at least one episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and who received appropriate WCD therapy, were identified within a registry maintained by the manufacturer for regulatory, reimbursement, and administrative purposes. The registry contained patients' Body Mass Index (BMI) which was categorized as normal (18.0

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: current technology and evolving indications.

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator has been available for over a decade and now is frequently prescribed for patients deemed at high arrhythmic risk in whom the underlying pathology is potentially reversible or who are awaiting an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is included in the new 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. The present review provides insight into the current technology and an overview of this approach.

Safety of the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) in Patients with Implanted Pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important approach for better risk stratification, applied to patients considered to be at high risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Patients with implanted pacemakers may also become candidates for use of the WCD. However, there is a potential risk that pacemaker signals may mislead the WCD detection algorithm and cause inappropriate WCD shock delivery. The aim of the study was to test the impact of different types of pacing, various right ventricular (RV) lead positions, and pacing modes for potential misleading of the WCD detection algorithm. METHODS: Sixty patients with implanted pacemakers received the WCD for a short time and each pacing mode (AAI, VVI, and DDD) was tested for at least 30 seconds in unipolar and bipolar pacing configuration. In case of triggering the WCD detection algorithm and starting the sequence of arrhythmia alarms, shock delivery was prevented by pushing of the response buttons. RESULTS: In six of 60 patients (10%), continuous unipolar pacing in DDD mode triggered the WCD detection algorithm. In no patient, triggering occurred with bipolar DDD pacing, unipolar and bipolar AAI, and VVI pacing. Triggering was independent of pacing amplitude, RV pacing lead position, and pulse generator implantation site. CONCLUSION: Unipolar DDD pacing bears a high risk of false triggering of the WCD detection algorithm. Other types of unipolar pacing and all bipolar pacing modes do not seem to mislead the WCD detection algorithm. Therefore, patients with no reprogrammable unipolar DDD pacing should not become candidates for the WCD.

Long-term outcome with cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure patients with left bundle branch block from US and Europe MADIT-CRT.

UNLABELLED: Early intervention with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) in mild heart failure (HF) patients with a left bundle branch block (LBBB) ECG pattern was associated with a significant reduction in mortality in the long-term MADIT-CRT trial. Whether patients in MADIT-CRT enrolled from centers in the USA and in Europe have different long-term clinical response to CRT-D remains unknown. We compared the baseline clinical characteristics and clinical and echocardiographic long-term clinical response to CRT-D between MADIT-CRT patients with LBBB who were enrolled in USA (n = 871) and European centers (n = 392). Although European patients had more advanced heart disease than US patients, CRT-D was associated with similar 60 % (p < 0.001) reductions in the risk of HF in US and European patients when compared to ICD-only therapy after adjustment for relevant baseline clinical covariates. US patients had significant long-term mortality reduction (38 %, p = 0.02) while among European patients the survival benefit associated with CRT-D was not statistically significant (HR 0.73, p = 0.18); subgroup analyses revealed a significantly greater CRT-D benefit among women who were enrolled in the USA, whereas no significant gender difference in the clinical benefit of CRT-D was observed in the European cohort. Reverse remodeling at 1 year was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes in both groups. Despite differences in baseline disease severity, European and US patients with LBBB experienced a similar clinical and echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy during long-term follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00180271 .

Apical vs. non-apical right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. The optimal site of right ventricular (RV) stimulation in CRT has not been established. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials and observational studies comparing the mid- and long-term effects of RV apical (RVA) and non-apical (RVNA) pacing on CRT outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for studies evaluating RVA vs. RVNA pacing in CRT with regards to left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction, functional status improvement (defined as ≥1 New York Heart Association class improvement), and the clinical outcome of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Effect estimates [standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] were pooled using random-effect models. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 2670 patients (1655 with an apical and 1015 with a non-apical RV lead position) were included. In meta-analyses, LVESV reduction and functional status improvement were similar in patients with RVA and RVNA pacing (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.50, P = 0.48; OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.45, P = 0.60, respectively). Data regarding mortality and hospitalizations could not be pooled due to a small number of relevant studies with significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that in CRT patients the effects of RVA or RVNA pacing on LV remodelling and functional status are similar. Mortality and morbidity outcomes with different RV lead positions should be further assessed in randomized clinical trials.

Risk stratification for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: the role of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.

The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy depends upon appropriate evaluation of a persisting risk of sudden death and estimation of the patient's overall survival. Assessment of a stable and unchangeable arrhythmogenic substrate is often difficult. Structural abnormality and ventricular dysfunction, the two major risk parameters, may recover, and heart failure symptoms can improve so that ICD therapy may not be indicated. Risk stratification can take time while the patient continues to be at high risk of arrhythmic death, and patients may need temporary bridging by a defibrillator in cases of interrupted ICD therapy. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) combines a long-term electrocardiogram (ECG)-monitoring system with an external automatic defibrillator. The LIfeVest® (ZOLL, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) is composed of a garment, containing two defibrillation patch electrodes on the back, and an elastic belt with a front-defibrillation patch electrode and four non-adhesive ECG electrodes, connected to a monitoring and defibrillation unit. The WCD is a safe and effective tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation events, unless a conscious patient withholds shock delivery. It may be used in patients in the early phase after acute myocardial infarction with poor left ventricular function, after acute coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤35%), in patients with acute heart failure in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy of uncertain aetiology and prognosis. The WCD may be helpful in subjects with syncope of assumed tachyarrhythmia origin or in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. The WCD may replace ICD implantation in patients waiting for heart transplantation or who need a ventricular-assist device. This review describes the technical details and characteristics of the WCD, discusses its various potential applications, and reports the currently available experience with the wearable defibrillator.

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]. / Die Geschichte des implantierbaren Kardioverter-Defibrillators in Deutschland.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

[History of surgical treatment of cardiac arrhythmias in Germany : Surgical treatment of ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular tachycardia, especially pre-excitation syndromes (WPW)]. / Geschichte der chirurgischen Behandlung von Herzrhythmusstörungen in Deutschland : Chirurgische Therapie ventrikulärer Tachykardien sowie supraventrikulärer Tachykardien, insbesondere Präexzitationssyndromen (WPW).

The history of surgical treatment of ventricular tachycardias (VT) is short, lasting from 1978 until 1993. "Indirect procedures" with infarct scar resection were performed without electrophysiologic studies, whereas "direct procedures" consisted of either complete endocardial incisions ("encircling endocardial ventriculotomy") or large endocardial resections ("endocardial peel-off" technique) after precise epicardial and endocardial mapping procedures. In Germany, the first to report on intra-operative electrophysiologic mapping for VT treatment were Ostermeyer, Breithardt and Seipel in 1979. In 1981, the Hannover group (Frank, Klein) published their first results of surgical treatment of VT. In 1984, Ostermeyer et al. demonstrated that a partial endocardial incision resulted in more beneficial results with less myocardial damage (8% versus 46%) than applying a complete encircling incision. In 1987, the Düsseldorf group reported treatment results of 93 patients. After 5 years, 77% had no VT recurrence, while total mortality after 1 year was 11% and after 5 years 30%. In 1992, the Hannover group reported results of 147 patients after endocardial resection for VT. Total mortality after 3 years was 27%; recurrence of VT events occurred in 18% of the surviving cohort.The history of surgical procedures for supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), in particular Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome, is even shorter than that of surgery for VT. As early as 1969, Sealy, Gallagher and Cox reported the first cases of surgical intervention for WPW syndrome via endocardial access in cardioplegic arrest. In 1984, Guiraudon and Klein reported on a new procedure with epicardial access to the accessory bundle without cardioplegia in laterally localised conduction pathways. In Germany, too, the groups in Düsseldorf (Ostermeyer, Seipel, Breithardt, Borggrefe) from 1980 and the Hannover group (Frank, Klein and Kallfelz) from 1981 performed surgical procedures for WPW syndrome. In 1987, Borggrefe reported on 18 patients with WPW syndrome and atrial fibrillation who had undergone surgery. After 2 years, 14 of 18 patients had no recurrences of tachycardia; in 1989, Frank, Klein and Kallfelz (Hannover) reported on 10 children (2-14 years) operated on using the cryoablation technique. Between 1984 and 1992, a total of 120 patients with SVT, mostly WPW syndrome, were operated on in Hannover; after 42 months, 12 patients had a recurrence of SVT. Two patients died during the reoperation.

[Short history of the DC-Catheter-Ablation]. / Kurze Geschichte der Katheterablation mit DC-Schocks.

Direct current (DC) catheter ablation in 5 patients aiming to interrupt rapid atrioventricular (AV) conduction with atrial fibrillation and subsequent pacemaker implantation was first published by M. M. Scheinman et al. (San Francisco, CA, USA) in 1982. In Germany, L. Seipel, G. Breithardt, and M. Borggrefe reported their first experience with DC catheter ablation in 1984, followed by the group in Bonn (M. Manz and B. Lüderitz) in 1985. The first international DC catheter ablation registry, which also included four German centers, reported DC catheter ablation results of 127 patients in 24 centers in 1984. Complete AV block was achieved in 71% patients. In 1992, the Hannover group (H­J. Trappe, H. Klein and J. Huang) reported results of DC catheter ablation of AV conduction performed between 1983 and 1990 in 100 patients (86% with rapid atrial fibrillation, 14% with AV-node reentry tachycardias). The first successful DC catheter ablation in a patient with Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome was reported in 1985 by F. Morady et al. (San Francisco, CA, USA). In 1987, M. Borggrefe et al. were the first to report a switch from DC catheter ablation to a high-frequency (HF) catheter ablation procedure in a patient with WPW syndrome. The use of DC catheter ablation to treat ventricular tachycardia (VT) was described by G. O. Hartzler (Kansas City, MO, USA) in 3 patients in 1983. M. Borggrefe et al. (1989) reported on 24 patients who underwent DC catheter ablation for VT. Of those, 17 patients did not have VT recurrence within the following 14 months. In 1994, the Hannover group (H-J Trappe, H. Klein) published their 5­year long-term results of DC catheter ablation of VT in 51 patients. VT recurrence occurred in 57% patients and overall mortality was also high (16%). A comparison of DC catheter ablation with HF catheter ablation for recurrent VT was reported in 1994 by G. Gonska et al. (Göttingen, Germany). After 2 years follow-up, success rates were not found to be significantly different.

Left ventricular lead position and clinical outcome in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-cardiac resynchronization therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial.

BACKGROUND: An important determinant of successful cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is the position of the left ventricular (LV) pacing lead. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the LV lead position on outcome in patients randomized to cardiac resynchronization-defibrillation in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: The location of the LV lead was assessed by means of coronary venograms and chest x-rays recorded at the time of device implantation. The LV lead location was classified along the short axis into an anterior, lateral, or posterior position and along the long axis into a basal, midventricular, or apical region. The primary end point of MADIT-CRT was heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death, whichever came first. The LV lead position was assessed in 799 patients, (55% patients ≥65 years of age, 26% female, 10% LV ejection fraction ≤25%, 55% ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 71% left bundle-branch block) with a follow-up of 29±11 months. The extent of cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit was similar for leads in the anterior, lateral, or posterior position (P=0.652). The apical lead location compared with leads located in the nonapical position (basal or midventricular region) was associated with a significantly increased risk for heart failure/death (hazard ratio=1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.71; P=0.019) after adjustment for the clinical covariates. The apical lead position was also associated with an increased risk for death (hazard ratio=2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 5.97; P=0.004). CONCLUSION: LV leads positioned in the apical region were associated with an unfavorable outcome, suggesting that this lead location should be avoided in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

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.

Advances in Our Clinical Understanding of Autonomic Regulation Therapy Using Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Patients Living With Heart Failure.

The ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF clinical studies of autonomic regulation therapy (ART) using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) systems have collectively provided dose-ranging information enabling the development of several working hypotheses on how stimulation frequency can be utilized during VNS for tolerability and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients living with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Changes in heart rate dynamics, comprising reduced heart rate (HR) and increased HR variability, are a biomarker of autonomic nerve system engagement and cardiac control, and appear to be sensitive to VNS that is delivered using a stimulation frequency that is similar to the natural operating frequency of the vagus nerve. Among prior studies, the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study has provided the clearest evidence of autonomic engagement with VNS that was delivered using a stimulation frequency that was within the operating range of the vagus nerve. Achieving autonomic engagement was accompanied by improvement from baseline in six-minute walk duration (6MWD), health-related quality of life, and left ventricular EF (LVEF), over and above those achieved by concomitant guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) administered to counteract harmful neurohormonal activation, with relative freedom from deleterious effects. Autonomic engagement and positive directional changes have persisted over time, and an exploratory analysis suggests that improvement in autonomic tone, symptoms, and physical capacity may be independent of baseline NT-proBNP values. Based upon these encouraging observations, prospective, randomized controlled trials examining the effects on symptoms and cardiac function as well as natural history have been warranted. A multi-national, large-scale, randomized, controlled trial is well underway to determine the outcomes associated with ART using autonomic nervous system engagement as a guide for VNS delivery.

Effect of elapsed time from coronary revascularization to implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator on long-term survival in the MADIT-II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary revascularization (CR) may reduce arrhythmia risk and improve long-term outcome in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of elapsed time from CR on long-term mortality and arrhythmic risk among patients who receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the risk of 8-year mortality by elapsed time from CR to ICD implantation (categorized as: no CR; recent CR [<2 years]; or nonrecent CR [≥2 years], and assessed as a continuous measure) among 720 ICD recipients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Trial-II. At 8 years of follow-up, patients who did not undergo CR and those who underwent nonrecent CR had significantly higher mortality rates than patients who underwent recent CR (54%, 54%, and 36%, respectively; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that no- and nonrecent CR were associated with respective 48% (P = 0.022) and 67% (P < 0.001) increases in mortality risk compared with recent CR. Assessment of time from CR as a continuous measure showed that every year elapsed from CR was associated with an adjusted 6% increase in 8-year mortality (P < 0.001), and in respective 6% (P < 0.001) and 6% (P = 0.003) increased risk for in-trial appropriate ICD therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD shocks. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a direct relationship between elapsed time from CR and long-term mortality following ICD implantation. The favorable long-term effect on outcome of recent CR may be related to a time-dependent effect of CR on ventricular arrhythmic burden and the need for appropriate ICD shocks.