Outcomes for patients with anterior myocardial infarction and prior cardiac arrest in the home automated external defibrillator trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with sudden cardiac arrest occurring in the acute phase of myocardial infarction (MI-SCA) are believed to be at similar risk of death after revascularization compared with MI patients without SCA (MI-no SCA). Among patients with anterior MI, we examined whether those with MI-SCA were at greater risk of all-cause mortality or sudden cardiac death (SCD) than MI-no SCA patients. METHODS: The Home Automated External Defibrillator Trial enrolled patients with anterior MI who had not received or were candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Our cohort included patients with a reported SCA event, in the acute phase of an MI, prior to HAT trial enrollment. Cox proportional hazards models examined the adjusted association between MI-SCA versus MI-no SCA patients and all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). We also determined whether the relationship between prior SCA and outcomes changed with subsequent events (syncope, revascularization, and recurrent MI) during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 6849 patients, 650 (9.5%) had MI-SCA before trial enrollment. Approximately 48% of patients had the MI-SCA event ≤1 year prior to enrollment; 71% of SCA events were in-hospital. MI-SCA patients were younger, more frequently white, and had higher rates of prior PCI versus MI-no SCA patients. There were no differences in adjusted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.38]) or SCD (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.68-1.83) for MI-SCA vs. MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients experienced higher all-cause mortality risk (HR 5.01, 95% CI 1.05-23.79) versus MI-no SCA patients; there was no mortality difference between MI-SCA and MI-no SCA patients without ICD implantation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.60-1.31), [interaction p = 0.035]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MI-SCA had similar adjusted risk of all-cause mortality and SCD compared with MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients had higher mortality compared with MI-no SCA patients.

Ventricular Fibrillation Recurrences in Successfully Shocked Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests.

Background and Objectives: The prognostic impact of ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrences after a successful shock in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) is still poorly understood, and some evidence suggests a potential pro-arrhythmic effect of chest compressions in this setting. In the present analysis, we looked at the short-term and long-term prognosis of VF recurrences in OOHCA. And their potential association with chest compressions. Materials and Methods: The Progetto Vita, prospectively collecting data on all resuscitation efforts in the Piacenza province (Italy), was used for the present analysis. From the 461 OOHCAs found in a shockable rhythm, only those with optimal ECG tracings and good audio recordings (160) were assessed. Rhythms other than VF post-shock were analyzed five seconds after shock delivery and survival to hospital admission, hospital discharge, and long-term survival data over a 14-year follow-up were collected. Results: Population mean age was 64.4 ± 16.9 years, and 31.9% of all patients were female. Mean time to EMS arrival was 5.9 ± 4.5 min. Short- and long-term survival without neurological impairment were higher in patients without VF recurrence when compared to patients with VF recurrence, independently from the pre-induction rhythm (p < 0.001). After shock delivery, VF recurrence was higher when chest compressions were resumed early after discharge and more vigorously. Conclusions: VF recurrences after a shock could worsen short and long-term survival. The potential pro-arrhythmic effect of chest compressions should be factored in when considering the real risks and benefits of this procedure.

Continuous ECG monitoring versus mobile telemetry: A comparison of arrhythmia diagnostics in human- versus algorithmic-dependent systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians rarely scrutinize the full disclosure of a myriad of FDA-approved long-term rhythm monitors, and they rely on manufacturers to detect and report relevant rhythm abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy between mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT), which uses an algorithm-based detection strategy, and continuous long-term electrocardiography (LT-ECG) monitoring, which uses a human-based detection strategy. METHODS: In an outpatient arrhythmia clinic, we enrolled 50 sequential patients ordered to wear a 30-day MCT, to simultaneously wear a continuous LT-ECG monitor. Periods of concomitant wear of both devices were examined using the associated report, which was over-read by 2 electrophysiologists. RESULTS: Forty-six of 50 patients wore both monitors simultaneously for an average of 10.3 ± 4.4 days (range: 1.2-14.8 days). During simultaneous recording, patients were more often diagnosed with arrhythmia by LT-ECG compared to MCT (23/46 vs 11/46), P = .018. Similarly, more arrhythmia episodes were detected during simultaneous recording with the LT-ECG compared to MCT (61 vs 19), P < .001. This trend remained consistent across arrhythmia subtypes, including ventricular tachycardia (13 patients by LT-ECG vs 7 by MCT), atrioventricular (AV) block (3 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT), and AV node reentrant tachycardia (2 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was documented by both monitors in 2 patients; however, LT-ECG monitoring captured 4 additional AF episodes missed by MCT. CONCLUSION: In a time-controlled, paired analysis of 2 disparate rhythm monitors worn simultaneously, human-dependent LT-ECG arrhythmia detection significantly outperformed algorithm-based MCT arrhythmia detection.

Long-Term Outcomes of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in the SCD-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: The SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) randomized 2,521 patients with moderate heart failure (HF) to amiodarone, placebo drug, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Original trial follow-up ended October 31, 2003. Over a median 45.5-month follow-up, amiodarone, compared with placebo, did not affect survival, whereas randomization to an ICD significantly decreased all-cause mortality by 23%. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the extended treatment group survival of the SCD-HeFT cohort. METHODS: Mortality outcomes for the 1,855 patients alive at the end of the SCD-HeFT trial were collected between 2010 and 2011. These data were combined with the 666 deaths from the original study to compare long-term outcomes overall and for key pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Median (25th to 75th percentiles) follow-up was 11.0 (10.0 to 12.2) years. On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the ICD group had overall survival benefit versus placebo drug (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.98; p = 0.028). When treatment benefit was examined as a function of time from randomization, attenuation of the ICD benefit was observed after 6 years (p value for the interaction = 0.0015). Subgroup analysis revealed long-term ICD benefit varied according to HF etiology and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class: ischemic HF HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.95; p = 0.009; nonischemic HF HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.20; p = 0.802; NYHA functional class II HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.90; p = 0.001; NYHA functional class III HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.31; p = 0.575. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up of SCD-HeFT patients to 11 years demonstrated heterogenous treatment-related patterns of long-term survival with ICD benefit most evident at 11 years for ischemic HF patients and for those with NYHA functional class II symptoms at trial enrollment. (SCD-HeFT 10 Year Follow-up [SCD-HeFT10 Yr]; NCT01058837).

Development and validation of warning system of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with heart failure with heart rate variability data.

Implantable-cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) detect and terminate life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia with electric shocks after they occur. This puts patients at risk if they are driving or in a situation where they can fall. ICD's shocks are also very painful and affect a patient's quality of life. It would be ideal if ICDs can accurately predict the occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia and then issue a warning or provide preventive therapy. Our study explores the use of ICD data to automatically predict ventricular arrhythmia using heart rate variability (HRV). A 5 minute and a 10 second warning system are both developed and compared. The participants for this study consist of 788 patients who were enrolled in the ICD arm of the Sudden Cardiac Death-Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Two groups of patient rhythms, regular heart rhythms and pre-ventricular-tachyarrhythmic rhythms, are analyzed and different HRV features are extracted. Machine learning algorithms, including random forests (RF) and support vector machines (SVM), are trained on these features to classify the two groups of rhythms in a subset of the data comprising the training set. These algorithms are then used to classify rhythms in a separate test set. This performance is quantified by the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve. Both RF and SVM methods achieve a mean AUC of 0.81 for 5-minute prediction and mean AUC of 0.87-0.88 for 10-second prediction; an AUC over 0.8 typically warrants further clinical investigation. Our work shows that moderate classification accuracy can be achieved to predict ventricular tachyarrhythmia with machine learning algorithms using HRV features from ICD data. These results provide a realistic view of the practical challenges facing implementation of machine learning algorithms to predict ventricular tachyarrhythmia using HRV data, motivating continued research on improved algorithms and additional features with higher predictive power.

Improving the Use of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Therapy With Validated Patient-Centric Risk Estimates.

OBJECTIVES: The authors previously developed the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) in systolic heart failure patients without implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)to predict the proportion of deaths that were sudden. They subsequently validated the SPRM in 2 observational ICD data sets. The objectives in the present study were to determine whether this validated model could improve identification of clinically important variations in the expected magnitude of ICD survival benefit by using a pivotal randomized trial of primary prevention ICD therapy. BACKGROUND: Recent data show that <50% of nominally eligible subjects receive guideline- recommended primary prevention ICDs. METHODS: In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), a placebo-controlled ICD trial in 2,521 patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% and symptomatic heart failure, we tested the use of patient-level SPRM-predicted probability of sudden death (relative to that of non-sudden death) as a summary measurement of the potential for ICD benefit. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate variations in the relationship between patient-level SPRM predictions and ICD benefit. RESULTS: Relative to use of mortality predictions with the Seattle Heart Failure Model, the SPRM was much better at partitioning treatment benefit from ICD therapy (effect size was 2- to 3.6-fold larger for the ICD×SPRM interaction). ICD benefit varied significantly across SPRM-predicted risk quartiles: for all-cause mortality, a +10% increase with ICD therapy in the first quartile (highest risk of death, lowest proportion of sudden death) to a decrease of 66% in the fourth quartile (lowest risk of death, highest proportion of sudden death; p = 0.0013); for sudden death mortality, a 19% reduction in SPRM quartile 1 to 95% reduction in SPRM quartile 4 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic systolic heart failure patients with a Class I recommendation for primary prevention ICD therapy, the SPRM offers a useful patient-centric tool for guiding shared decision making.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes.

AIM: There is limited information on the outcomes after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with heart failure (HF) and diabetes. This analysis evaluates the effectiveness of a strategy of ICD plus medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone among patients with HF and diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A patient-level combined-analysis was conducted from a combined dataset that included four primary prevention ICD trials of patients with HF or severely reduced ejection fractions: Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT I), MADIT II, Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation (DEFINITE), and Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). In total, 3359 patients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause death. Compared with patients without diabetes (n = 2363), patients with diabetes (n = 996) were older and had a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors. During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 437 patients without diabetes died (178 with ICD vs. 259 without) and 280 patients with diabetes died (128 with ICD vs. 152 without). ICDs were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality among patients without diabetes [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.67] but not among patients with diabetes (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.7-1.12; interaction P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Among patients with HF and diabetes, primary prevention ICD in combination with medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of ICDs among patients with diabetes.

New York Heart Association class and the survival benefit from primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS: We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n=1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n=1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction=.036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Predicting appropriate shocks in patients with heart failure: Patient level meta-analysis from SCD-HeFT and MADIT II.

BACKGROUND: No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. RESULTS: There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks.

Recent developments in the subcutaneous ICD.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was developed as a simple device to reduce the morbidity of ICD therapy while providing a comparable reduction in sudden death from ventricular fibrillation. This review highlights the differences compared to the traditional ICD. It includes recent data on safety and efficacy, as well as best practices on screening and programming, and discusses expected future developments.

Community-based automated external defibrillator only resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

BACKGROUND: Speed is the cornerstone of rescue for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. As a consequence, community participation programs have been initiated to decrease response times. Even in the very best of these programs, however, short-term survival rates hover around 10% and long-term survival rates are half that. In most locales, survival is far worse. In Piacenza, Italy, responders have been trained for more than a decade to use publicly available automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and eschew the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is known locally as "Progetto Vita." METHODS: From 2001 to 2014, we prospectively collected outcome data on all Progetto Vita-treated patients and all 3271 standard emergency medical services (EMS) patients. Progetto Vita rescuers simply accessed a public AED, turned it on, and only followed its instructions. Progetto Vita rescuers did not do CPR of any sort. If EMS arrived prior to initiation or even completion of the Progetto Vita protocol, EMS-supplanted Progetto Vita efforts and patients were not included in the Progetto Vita cohort. Follow-up was collected by each responder's data files, medical record review, and use of the Italian system death index. All cardiac arrest patients' death status was validated in 100% of patients through August 1, 2014. FINDINGS: Survival to hospital discharge occurred in 39 (41.4%) of the 95 patients treated by Progetto Vita and in 193 (5.9%) of the 3271 EMS patients. At 13-year follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were 31.8% when AEDs only were used and 2.4% for standard EMS/CPR response. Estimates of survival are significantly better for Progetto Vita AED-only therapy when survival was stratified by time to respond, gender, location of cardiac arrest, and shockable rhythm. Relative to the 95 EMS patients with the fastest response times, Progetto Vita intervention was associated with a more than 2-fold increased rate of survival. INTERPRETATION: This is the first demonstration of excellent long-term survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by promoting speed and ease of lay AED response without CPR.

SCD-HeFT: Use of R-R interval statistics for long-term risk stratification for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death.

BACKGROUND: In the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), a significant fraction of the patients with congestive heart failure ultimately did not die suddenly of arrhythmic causes. Patients with CHF will benefit from better tools to identify if implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is needed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify predictor variables from baseline SCD-HeFT patients' R-R intervals that correlate to arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD) and mortality and to design an ICD therapy screening test. METHODS: Ten predictor variables were extracted from prerandomization Holter data from 475 patients enrolled in the ICD arm of the SCD-HeFT by using novel and traditional heart rate variability methods. All variables were correlated to SCD using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test and receiver operating characteristic analysis. ICD therapy screening tests were designed by minimizing the cost of false classifications. Survival analysis, including log-rank test and Cox models, was also performed. RESULTS: A short-term fractal exponent, α1, and a long-term fractal exponent, α2, from detrended fluctuation analysis, the ratio of low- to high-frequency power, the number of premature ventricular contractions per hour, and the heart rate turbulence slope are all statistically significant for predicting the occurrences of SCD (P < .001) and survival (log-rank, P < .01). The most powerful multivariate predictor tool using the Cox proportional hazards regression model was α2 with a hazard ratio of 0.0465 (95% confidence interval 0.00528-0.409; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Predictor variables extracted from R-R intervals correlate to the occurrences of SCD and distinguish survival functions among patients with ICDs in SCD-HeFT. We believe that SCD prediction models should incorporate Holter-based R-R interval analysis to refine ICD patient selection, especially to exclude patients who are unlikely to benefit from ICD therapy.

Survival benefit of the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among older patients: does age matter? An analysis of pooled data from 5 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of patient age on the risks of death or rehospitalization after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 5 major ICD trials were merged: the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II), the Defibrillators in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation Trial (DEFINITE), and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Median age at enrollment was 62 (interquartile range 53-70) years. Compared with their younger counterparts, older patients had a greater burden of comorbid illness. In unadjusted exploratory analyses, ICD recipients were less likely to die than nonrecipients in all age groups: among patients aged <55 years: hazard ratio 0.48, 95% posterior credible interval 0.33 to 0.69; among patients aged 55 to 64 years: hazard ratio 0.69, 95% posterior credible interval 0.53 to 0.90; among patients aged 65 to 74 years: hazard ratio 0.67, 95% posterior credible interval, 0.53 to 0.85; and among patients aged ≥75 years: hazard ratio 0.54, 95% posterior credible interval 0.37 to 0.78. Sample sizes were limited among patients aged ≥75 years. In adjusted Bayesian-Weibull modeling, point estimates indicate ICD efficacy persists but is attenuated with increasing age. There was evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on survival (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction <0.01). Using an adjusted Bayesian logistic regression model, there was no evidence of an interaction between age and ICD treatment on rehospitalization (two-sided posterior tail probability of no interaction 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the survival benefit of the ICD exists but is attenuated with increasing age. The latter finding may be because of the higher burden of comorbid illness, competing causes of death, or limited sample size of older patients. There was no evidence that age modifies the association between ICD treatment and rehospitalization.

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients with comorbidities: results from a combined analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is modulated by medical comorbidity. BACKGROUND: Primary prevention ICDs improve survival in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death. Their benefit in patients with significant comorbid illness has not been demonstrated. METHODS: Original, patient-level datasets from MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I), MADIT II, DEFINITE (Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation), and SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) were combined. Patients in the combined population (N = 3,348) were assessed with respect to the following comorbidities: smoking, pulmonary disease, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome was overall mortality, using the hazard ratio (HR) of time to death for patients receiving an ICD versus no ICD by extent of medical comorbidity, and adjusted for age, sex, race, left ventricular ejection fraction, use of antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. RESULTS: Overall, 25% of patients (n = 830) had <2 comorbid conditions versus 75% (n = 2,518) with significant comorbidity (≥2). The unadjusted hazard of death for patients with an ICD versus no ICD was significantly lower, but this effect was less for patients with ≥2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.84) compared with those with <2 comorbidities (unadjusted HR: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.87). After adjustment, the benefit of an ICD decreased with increasing number of comorbidities (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extensive comorbid medical illnesses may experience less benefit from primary prevention ICDs than those with less comorbidity; implantation should be carefully considered in sick patients. Further study of ICDs in medically complex patients is warranted.

Unexpected deviation in circadian variation of ventricular arrhythmias: the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether circadian patterns in ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occur in a current primary prevention defibrillator (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) population. BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events, including VAs, demonstrate biorhythmic periodicity. METHODS: We tested for deviation from the previously described occurrences of a morning peak, early morning nadir, and peak on Mondays in ICD therapies using generalized estimating equations and Student t tests. All hypothesis tests were performed in the entire cohort of patients with VAs as well as pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Of 811 patients with an ICD, 186 subjects experienced 714 ICD therapy episodes for life-threatening VA. There was no morning (6 am to 12 pm) peak in therapies for the entire cohort or any subgroups. The overall cohort and several subgroups had a typical early morning (12 am to 6 am) nadir in therapies, with significantly less than 25% of therapies occurring during this 6-h block (all p < 0.05). A significant peak in therapies on Mondays occurred only in patients not on beta-blocker therapy (22% of events for the week, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) population, the distribution of life-threatening VA failed to show a typical early morning peak or increased VA events on Mondays. A typical early morning nadir was seen in the entire cohort. An increased rate of events on Mondays was found in the subgroup of subjects not on beta-blocker therapy. These findings may indicate suppression of the neurohormonal triggers for VA by current heart failure therapy, particularly the use of beta-blockers in heart failure.

Use of the 6-min walk distance to identify variations in treatment benefits from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and amiodarone: results from the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if 6-min walk test data assists in treatment decisions for patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), a pre-specified subgroup analysis showed that patients with New York Heart Association functional class III symptoms did not benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy and appeared to be harmed by amiodarone, whereas New York Heart Association functional class II patients obtained significant survival benefit from ICD. We postulated that a more objective measure of functional capacity, such as 6-min walk (6MW) distance, might provide a better tool for selecting these preventive therapies. METHODS: A 6MW test was performed before randomization in 2,397 patients. Median follow-up was 45.5 months. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint, with cause-specific mortality (heart failure, arrhythmic) examined in secondary analyses. RESULTS: The hazard ratios (HRs) for ICD therapy compared to placebo were estimated within tertiles of baseline 6MW distance: HR: 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26 to 0.66) for 6MW distance >386 m (top tertile); HR: 0.57 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.83) for 6MW distance 288 to 386 m (middle tertile); and HR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.39) for 6MW distance <288 m (bottom tertile). The corresponding HRs for amiodarone compared to placebo were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.02) for the top, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.61 to 1.21) for the middle, and 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17 to 2.09) for the bottom tertile. The 6MW distance was inversely related to heart failure-related mortality but not to arrhythmic mortality. ICD therapy reduced arrhythmic mortality in the top 2 tertiles of 6MW, but had no effect on heart failure mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A baseline 6MW distance <288 m identified a subgroup of SCD-HeFT patients who were harmed by amiodarone therapy and did not benefit from ICD. (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial [SCD-HeFT]; NCT00000609).

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in CKD: a meta-analysis of patient-level data from 3 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) among patients with chronic kidney disease is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of patient-level data from randomized controlled trials. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with symptomatic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction<35%. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: From 7 available randomized controlled studies with patient-level data, we selected studies with available data for important covariates. Studies without patient-level data for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were excluded. INTERVENTION: Primary prevention ICD versus usual care effect modification by eGFR. OUTCOMES: Mortality, rehospitalizations, and effect modification by eGFR. RESULTS: We included data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial I (MADIT-I), MADIT-II, and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). 2,867 patients were included; 36.3% had eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2. Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of death during follow-up was 43.3% for 1,334 patients receiving usual care and 35.8% for 1,533 ICD recipients. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was evidence that the survival benefit of ICDs in comparison to usual care depends on eGFR (posterior probability for null interaction P<0.001). The ICD was associated with survival benefit for patients with eGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.24-0.95), but not for patients with eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% posterior credible interval, 0.40-1.53). eGFR did not modify the association between the ICD and rehospitalizations. LIMITATIONS: Few patients with eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were available. Differences in trial-to-trial measurement techniques may lead to residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in baseline eGFR decrease the survival benefit associated with the ICD. These findings should be confirmed by additional studies specifically targeting patients with varying eGFRs.