Selected patients listed for cardiac transplantation may benefit from defibrillator implantation regardless of an established indication.

BACKGROUND: End-stage heart failure (HF) patients are at high risk of sudden cardiac death. This study evaluates the role of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) in HF patients awaiting cardiac transplantation. METHODS: We identified 194 consecutive patients (age 51 +/- 12 years) with New York Heart Association Class 3 or 4 HF (ejection fraction 22 +/- 9%) listed for cardiac transplantation, 35 of whom underwent ICD implantation. Of the implanted patients, 16 (Group A) had an established indication for ICD implantation (cardiac arrest, n = 10; sustained ventricular tachycardia [VT], n = 3; and positive electrophysiology study, n = 3). Nineteen patients (Group B) underwent ICD implantation for non-established indications (syncope with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, n = 4; non-sustained VT, n = 15). There were no procedural complications from ICD implantation. RESULTS: During follow-up of 9.2 +/- 10.1 months, there were 3 deaths in the ICD groups (A and B), and 40 in the control group (8.6% vs 25.2%, p = 0.032). Five patients in Group A and 6 in Group B (31%) received appropriate ICD therapy. The number of therapies per patient and the time to the first shock were similar between Groups A and B. Four of 6 Group B patients on outpatient inotropic therapy (67%) received appropriate ICD therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Selected end-stage heart failure patients awaiting heart transplantation, including those without established ICD indications, are at high risk for malignant arrhythmias and may benefit from ICD implantation. Patients with ICD seem to have improved survival compared to those without ICD. Randomized prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Prospective randomized comparison of cooled radiofrequency versus standard radiofrequency energy for ablation of typical atrial flutter.

In patients with atrial flutter, conventional RF ablation may not result in complete isthmus block. This prospective, randomized study tested the hypothesis that the cooled RF ablation is safe and facilitates the achievement of isthmus block with fewer RF applications than with standard ablation for typical atrial flutter. Isthmus ablation was performed in 59 patients (40 men, 64 +/- 14 years) with type I atrial flutter using standard RF (n = 31) or cooled RF (n = 28) catheters with crossover after 12 unsuccessful RF applications. The endpoint was bidirectional isthmus block or a total of 24 unsuccessful RF applications. After the first 12 RF applications, 17 (55%) of 31 standard RF and 22 (79%) of 28 cooled RF patients had bidirectional isthmus block (P < 0.05). After the remaining patients crossed over to the alternate RF ablation system and underwent up to 12 more RF applications, bidirectional isthmus block had been demonstrated in 27 (87%) of 31 standard RF and 25 (89%) of 28 cooled RF patients (P = NS). Isthmus block was not achieved within 24 RF applications in four standard and three cooled RF patients. Mean measured tip temperatures for cooled RF were lower than for standard RF (38.5 degrees C +/- 6.98 degrees C vs 57.2 degrees C +/- 7.42 degrees C, P < 0.0001). Peak temperatures were also lower for cooled RF compared to standard RF (45.7 degrees C +/- 22.7 degrees C vs 63.4 degrees C +/- 9.87 degrees C, P < 0.0001). Importantly, mean power delivered was significantly higher for cooled than for standard RF (42.3 +/- 9.48 vs 34.0 +/- 14.0 W, P < 0.0001). There were no serious complications for either ablation system. During a 12.8 +/- 3.76-month follow-up, there were two atrial flutter recurrences in the cooled RF group and four in the standard RF group (P = NS). In patients with type I atrial flutter, ablation with the cooled RF catheter is as safe as, and facilitates creation of bidirectional isthmus block more rapidly than, standard RF ablation.