Clinical impact of remote heart failure management using the multiparameter ICD HeartLogic alert.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The multiparametric implantable cardioverter-defibrillator HeartLogic index has proven to be a sensitive and timely predictor of impending heart failure (HF) decompensation. We evaluated the impact of a standardized follow-up protocol implemented by nursing staff and based on remote management of alerts. METHODS: The algorithm was activated in HF patients at 19 Spanish centers. Transmitted data were analyzed remotely, and patients were contacted by telephone if alerts were issued. Clinical actions were implemented remotely or through outpatient visits. The primary endpoint consisted of HF hospitalizations or death. Secondary endpoints were HF outpatient visits. We compared the 12-month periods before and after the adoption of the protocol. RESULTS: We analyzed 392 patients (aged 69±10 years, 76% male, 50% ischemic cardiomyopathy) with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (20%) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (80%). The primary endpoint occurred 151 times in 86 (22%) patients during the 12 months before the adoption of the protocol, and 69 times in 45 (11%) patients (P<.001) during the 12 months after its adoption. The mean number of hospitalizations per patient was 0.39±0.89 pre- and 0.18±0.57 postadoption (P<.001). There were 185 outpatient visits for HF in 96 (24%) patients before adoption and 64 in 48 (12%) patients after adoption (P<.001). The mean number of visits per patient was 0.47±1.11 pre- and 0.16±0.51 postadoption (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized follow-up protocol based on remote management of HeartLogic alerts enabled effective remote management of HF patients. After its adoption, we observed a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations and outpatient visits.

The VR leadless pacemaker: Results of an expert panel using the RAND/UCLA method.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers were developed to reduce complications associated with transvenous pacemaker implantation and long-term follow-up. Existing international guidelines lack detailed instructions on patients suitable for leadless pacemaker implantation. Our aim was to develop a consensus document that provides medical guidance for all health professionals involved in the indication and implantation of Transcatheter Pacing System single-chamber device (VR leadless) pacemakers for patients with atrial fibrillation or in sinus rhythm. METHODS: A panel of experts, including interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, used the Research ANd Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) method to rate the appropriateness of leadless pacemaker implantation for 64 scenarios in patients with atrial fibrillation and 192 scenarios in sinus rhythm. The scenarios were rated individually and again during a moderated group session. Median ratings and level of agreement were calculated to classify each scenario as appropriate, inappropriate, or questionable. RESULTS: This consensus statement, based on available literature and the experts' opinions, summarizes recommendations for standardizing and optimizing leadless pacemaker implantation. The limitation for vascular access via the superior vena cava was the most influential variable when indicating leadless pacemaker implantation in both patients with atrial fibrillation and patients in sinus rhythm. CONCLUSIONS: Life expectancy, risk of infection, prosthetic valve, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), limitation for vascular access via the superior vena cava, and mobility and exercise capacity determine who is advised to undergo VR leadless pacemaker implantation. More prospective studies are needed to optimize existing recommendations.

Remote heart failure management using the HeartLogic algorithm. RE-HEART registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: HeartLogic is a multiparametric algorithm incorporated into implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). The associated alerts predict impending heart failure (HF) decompensations. Our objective was to analyze the association between alerts and clinical events and to describe the implementation of a protocol for remote management in a multicenter registry. METHODS: We evaluated study phase 1 (the investigators were blinded to the alert state) and phases 2 and 3 (after HeartLogic activation, managed as per local practice and with a standardized protocol, respectively). RESULTS: We included 288 patients from 15 centers. In phase 1, the median observation period was 10 months and there were 73 alerts (0.72 alerts/patient-y), with 8 hospitalizations and 2 emergency room admissions for HF (0.10 events/patient-y). There were no HF hospitalizations outside the alert period. In the active phases, the median follow-up was 16 (95%CI, 15-22) months and there were 277 alerts (0.89 alerts/patient-y); 33 were associated with HF hospitalizations or HF death (n=6), 46 with minor decompensations, and 78 with other events. The unexplained alert rate was 0.39 alerts/patient-y. Outside the alert state, there was only 1 HF hospitalization and 1 minor HF decompensation. Most alerts (82% in phase 2 and 81% in phase 3; P=.861) were remotely managed. The median NT-proBNP value was higher within than outside the alert state (7378 vs 1210 pg/mL; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The HeartLogic index was frequently associated with HF-related events and other clinically relevant situations, with a low rate of unexplained events. A standardized protocol allowed alerts to be safely and remotely detected and appropriate action to be taken on them.

Validation of multiparametric approaches for the prediction of sudden cardiac death in patients with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric scores have been designed for better risk stratification in Brugada syndrome (BrS). We aimed to validate 3 multiparametric approaches (the Delise score, Sieira score and the Shanghai BrS Score) in a cohort with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study (EPS). METHODS: We included patients diagnosed with BrS and previous EPS between 1998 and 2019 in 23 hospitals. C-statistic analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used. RESULTS: A total of 831 patients were included (mean age, 42.8±13.1; 623 [75%] men; 386 [46.5%] had a type 1 electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern, 677 [81.5%] were asymptomatic, and 319 [38.4%] had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). During a follow-up of 10.2±4.7 years, 47 (5.7%) experienced a cardiovascular event. In the global cohort, a type 1 ECG and syncope were predictive of arrhythmic events. All risk scores were significantly associated with events. The discriminatory abilities of the 3 scores were modest (particularly when these scores were evaluated in asymptomatic patients). Evaluation of the Delise and Sieira scores with different numbers of extra stimuli (1 or 2 vs 3) did not substantially improve the event prediction c-index. CONCLUSIONS: In BrS, classic risk factors such as ECG pattern and previous syncope predict arrhythmic events. The predictive capabilities of the EPS are affected by the number of extra stimuli required to induce ventricular arrhythmias. Scores combining clinical risk factors with EPS help to identify the populations at highest risk, although their predictive abilities remain modest in the general BrS population and in asymptomatic patients.

Long-term prognosis of women with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study.

BACKGROUND: A male predominance in Brugada syndrome (BrS) has been widely reported, but scarce information on female patients with BrS is available. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis of women with BrS. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of patients diagnosed with BrS and previous electrophysiological study (EPS) was performed. RESULTS: Among 770 patients, 177 (23%) were female. At presentation, 150 (84.7%) were asymptomatic. Females presented less frequently with a type 1 electrocardiographic pattern (30.5% vs 55.0%; P <.001), had a higher rate of family history of sudden cardiac death (49.7% vs 29.8%; P <.001), and had less sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) on EPS (8.5% vs 15.1%; P = .009). Genetic testing was performed in 79 females (45% of the sample) and was positive in 34 (19%). An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted in 48 females (27.1%). During mean (± SD) follow-up of 122.17 ± 57.28 months, 5 females (2.8%) experienced a cardiovascular event compared to 42 males (7.1%; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, a positive genetic test (18.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-192.53; P = .01) and atrial fibrillation (odds ratio 21.12; 95% CI 1.27-350.85; P = .03) were predictive of arrhythmic events, whereas VAs on EPS (neither with 1 or 2 extrastimuli nor 3 extrastimuli) were not. CONCLUSION: Women with BrS represent a minor fraction among patients with BrS, and although their rate of events is low, they do not constitute a risk-free group. Neither clinical risk factors nor EPS predicts future arrhythmic events. Only atrial fibrillation and positive genetic test were identified as risk factors for future arrhythmic events.

Antitachycardia pacing for shock prevention in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) carries an increased risk of sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a well-established therapy for treatment of VA. Monomorphic ventricular tachycardias (MVTs) are frequent in HCM patients and suitable for antitachycardia pacing (ATP) termination. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe ventricular tachycardia (VT) characteristics in a population of HCM patients with ICD and to study the effectiveness and safety of ATP for MVT. METHODS: Data were obtained from the multicenter prospective observational UMBRELLA trial, which included all patients with HCM and ICD followed by the CareLink Monitoring System. All episodes of VA were collected and analyzed. ATP effectiveness and safety were described, and factors related to ATP effectiveness were studied with generalized estimating equation (GEE) models. RESULTS: Among 251 patients followed for 47 months, 67 (26.7%) were implanted as secondary prevention. Fifty-six patients presented 326 episodes of VA (286 [87%] MVT). Mean cycle length was 312 ± 64 ms. Among 264 MVTs that received ICD therapy, 202 (76.5%) were ATP terminated. The first ATP burst was effective in 169 episodes (68.4%), and overall effectiveness of the first or second ATP burst was 73.8%. Multivariate GEE-adjusted analysis showed 2 variables related to ATP effectiveness: programming fast VT zone On vs Off (odds ratio [OR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-5.2; P = .03) and programming ≥2 ATP bursts vs 1 burst only (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-3.4; P = .04; and OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8-6.3; P = .02; respectively). CONCLUSION: MVT is the predominant VA in HCM patients with ICD. ATP is highly effective in terminating the majority of MVTs, and its proved effectiveness should guide device selection and programming in order to avoid unnecessary high-energy shocks.

Selección de lo mejor del año 2017 en desfibriladores implantables / Selection of the best of 2017 in implantable defibrillators

No disponible

Long-term prognosis of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias induced by coronary artery spasm.

Aims: Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Much controversy remains regarding the best therapeutic interventions for this specific patient subset. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with a history of life-threatening VA due to CAS with various medical interventions, as well as the need for ICD placement in the setting of optimal medical therapy. Methods and results: A multicentre European retrospective survey of patients with VA in the setting of CAS was aggregated and relevant clinical and demographic data was analysed. Forty-nine appropriate patients were identified: 43 (87.8%) presented with VF and 6 (12.2%) with rapid VT. ICD implantation was performed in 44 (89.8%). During follow-up [59 (17-117) months], appropriate ICD shocks were documented in 12. In 8/12 (66.6%) no more ICD therapies were recorded after optimizing calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy. SCD occurred in one patient without ICD. Treatment with beta-blockers was predictive of appropriate device discharge. Conversely, non-dihydropyridine CCB therapy was significantly protective against VAs. Conclusion: Patients with life-threatening VAs secondary to CAS are at particularly high-risk for recurrence, especially when insufficient medical therapy is administered. Non-dihydropyridine CCBs are capable of suppressing episodes, whereas beta-blocker treatment is predictive of VAs. Ultimately, in spite of medical intervention, some patients exhibited arrhythmogenic events in the long-term, suggesting that ICD implantation may still be indicated for all.

Exposición de las cardiólogas intervencionistas a radiaciones ionizantes durante el embarazo. ¿Realmente es necesario? / Radiation exposure to the pregnant interventional cardiologist. Is it really necessary?

No disponible

Selección de lo mejor del año 2016 en desfibriladores implantables / Selection of the best of 2016 in implantable defibrillators

No disponible

Evaluación comparativa de cuatro puntuaciones de riesgo para predecir la mortalidad de pacientes con desfibrilador automático implantable en prevención primaria / Comparative evaluation of four risk scores for predicting mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention

Introducción y objetivos: Se han elaborado varias puntuaciones clínicas del riesgo para identificar a los pacientes con un riesgo de mortalidad por cualquier causa elevado a pesar del implante de un desfibrilador implantable. El objetivo de este trabajo es examinar y comparar la capacidad predictiva de 4 sistemas de puntuación sencillos (MADIT-II, FADES, PACE y SHOCKED) por lo que respecta a la predicción de la mortalidad tras implante de desfibrilador para la prevención primaria de la muerte súbita cardiaca en un país mediterráneo. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo un estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo en 15 hospitales españoles. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos remitidos para implante de desfibrilador entre enero de 2010 y diciembre de 2011. Resultados: Se incluyó a 916 pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica o no isquémica (media de edad, 62 ± 11 años; el 81,4% varones). Durante un periodo de 33,4 ± 12,9 meses, fallecieron 113 pacientes (12,3%), el 9,4% (86 pacientes) por causa cardiovascular. A los 12, 24, 36 y 48 meses, la tasa de mortalidad fue del 4,5, el 7,6, el 10,8 y el 12,3% respectivamente. Todas las puntuaciones de riesgo mostraron un aumento escalonado del riesgo de muerte a lo largo de todo el sistema de puntuación de cada una de ellas y las 4 identificaron a los pacientes en mayor riesgo de mortalidad. Las puntuaciones tuvieron asociación significativa con la mortalidad por cualquier causa en todo el periodo de seguimiento. La puntuación PACE fue la que mostró un valor del índice c más bajo, tanto si la población tenía una cardiopatía de origen isquémico (estadístico c = 0,61) como si era de origen no isquémico (estadístico c = 0,61), mientras que la puntuación MADIT-II (estadístico c = 0,67 y 0,65 en la miocardiopatía isquémica y no isquémica respectivamente), las puntuaciones SHOCKED (estadístico c = 0,68 y 0,66 respectivamente) y FADES (estadístico c = 0,66 y 0,60) mostraron unos valores del estadístico c similares (p ≥ 0,09). Conclusiones: En esta cohorte de pacientes mediterráneos que no formaba parte de un ensayo clínico, las 4 puntuaciones de riesgo evaluadas mostraron un significativo aumento escalonado del riesgo de muerte. De entre las puntuaciones de riesgo existentes, MADIT-II, FADES y SHOCKED aportan un rendimiento ligeramente superior al de la puntuación PACE (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Several clinical risk scores have been developed to identify patients at high risk of all-cause mortality despite implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. We aimed to examine and compare the predictive capacity of 4 simple scoring systems (MADIT-II, FADES, PACE and SHOCKED) for predicting mortality after defibrillator implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a Mediterranean country. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation between January 2010 and December 2011 were included. Results: A total of 916 patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease were included (mean age, 62 ± 11 years, 81.4% male). Over 33.4 ± 12.9 months, 113 (12.3%) patients died (cardiovascular origin in 86 [9.4%] patients). At 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, mortality rates were 4.5%, 7.6%, 10.8%, and 12.3% respectively. All the risk scores showed a stepwise increase in the risk of death throughout the scoring system of each of the scores and all 4 scores identified patients at greater risk of mortality. The scores were significantly associated with all-cause mortality throughout the follow-up period. PACE displayed the lowest c-index value regardless of whether the population had heart disease of ischemic (c-statistic = 0.61) or nonischemic origin (c-statistic = 0.61), whereas MADIT-II (c-statistic = 0.67 and 0.65 in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, respectively), SHOCKED (c-statistic = 0.68 and 0.66, respectively), and FADES (c-statistic = 0.66 and 0.60) provided similar c-statistic values (P ≥ .09). Conclusions: In this nontrial-based cohort of Mediterranean patients, the 4 evaluated risk scores showed a significant stepwise increase in the risk of death. Among the currently available risk scores, MADIT-II, FADES, and SHOCKED provide slightly better performance than PACE (AU)

Comparative Evaluation of Four Risk Scores for Predicting Mortality in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator for Primary Prevention.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Several clinical risk scores have been developed to identify patients at high risk of all-cause mortality despite implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. We aimed to examine and compare the predictive capacity of 4 simple scoring systems (MADIT-II, FADES, PACE and SHOCKED) for predicting mortality after defibrillator implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a Mediterranean country. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation between January 2010 and December 2011 were included. RESULTS: A total of 916 patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease were included (mean age, 62 ± 11 years, 81.4% male). Over 33.4 ± 12.9 months, 113 (12.3%) patients died (cardiovascular origin in 86 [9.4%] patients). At 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, mortality rates were 4.5%, 7.6%, 10.8%, and 12.3% respectively. All the risk scores showed a stepwise increase in the risk of death throughout the scoring system of each of the scores and all 4 scores identified patients at greater risk of mortality. The scores were significantly associated with all-cause mortality throughout the follow-up period. PACE displayed the lowest c-index value regardless of whether the population had heart disease of ischemic (c-statistic = 0.61) or nonischemic origin (c-statistic = 0.61), whereas MADIT-II (c-statistic = 0.67 and 0.65 in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, respectively), SHOCKED (c-statistic = 0.68 and 0.66, respectively), and FADES (c-statistic = 0.66 and 0.60) provided similar c-statistic values (P ≥ .09). CONCLUSIONS: In this nontrial-based cohort of Mediterranean patients, the 4 evaluated risk scores showed a significant stepwise increase in the risk of death. Among the currently available risk scores, MADIT-II, FADES, and SHOCKED provide slightly better performance than PACE.

La ablación de fibrilación auricular en España

Introducción: la ablación de la fibrilación auricular es uno de los procedimientos más frecuentemente realizados en las unidades de arritmias. La información de los resultados proviene de estudios prospectivos, registros multicéntricos y registros nacionales. Objetivo: evaluar la situación de la ablación de la fibrilación auricular en España a través de los datos recogidos en el Registro Español de Ablación, auspiciado por la Sección de Electrofisiología y Arritmias de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Métodos: los datos analizados provienen de los formularios remitidos, de forma voluntaria y anónima, por los diferentes centros hospitalarios, tanto de financiación pública como privada, durante el período 2008-2013. Cada centro fue analizado, año a año, de forma independiente. Analizamos los recursos humanos y materiales de los centros que realizaron procedimientos de ablación de fibrilación auricular durante ese período de tiempo. Asimismo, analizamos la técnica utilizada, el tipo de energía, complicaciones, etcétera. Comparamos todas las variables de forma evolutiva, año a año. Dividimos a los centros en función del número de procedimientos de ablación realizados cada año: 1-49, grupo A; 50-99, grupo B, y 100 o más, grupo C. Resultados: trescientos noventa y un centros (n=391) y 8.926 procedimientos de ablación fueron analizados. Año a año ha aumentado el número de centros que realizan ablación de fibrilación auricular y el número de procedimientos que realiza cada centro. El porcentaje de complicaciones se ha mantenido estable reduciéndose ligeramente la mortalidad. Los centros con mayor volumen tienen mayor dotación de recursos humanos y materiales. Realizan ablación de fibrilación auricular persistente con mayor frecuencia y realizan crioablación con menor frecuencia. Asimismo, estos centros tienen una menor incidencia de complicaciones. Conclusiones: la ablación de fibrilación auricular en España ha aumentado en los últimos años y presenta resultados similares a los recogidos en otros registros nacionales y multinacionales.

Prevención primaria de muerte súbita en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular / Primary prevention of sudden death in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy

Introducción y objetivos: Existe escasa evidencia sobre la evolución de los pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular remitidos para implante de desfibrilador por prevención primaria. Se pretende describir la evolución de este subgrupo particular. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo en 15 centros españoles que incluyó pacientes consecutivos remitidos para implante de desfibrilador en los años 2010 y 2011, y en tres centros desde el 1 enero de 2008. Resultados: De un total de 1.174 pacientes, 73 (6,2%) presentaron miocardiopatía valvular. Comparados con los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica (n = 659; 56,1%) o dilatada (n = 442; 37,6%), presentaron peor clase funcional, mayor anchura del QRS y antecedente de fibrilación auricular. Durante un seguimiento de 38,1 ± 21,3 meses, 197 (16,7%) pacientes fallecieron por cualquier causa, sin diferencias significativas entre grupos (19,2% en miocardiopatía valvular, 15,8% en isquémica y 17,9% en miocardiopatía dilatada; p = 0,2). De estos, 136 murieron por causa cardiovascular (11,6%), sin diferencias significativas (12,3%; 10,5% y 13,1%, respectivamente; p = 0,1). Tampoco hubo diferencias en la proporción de intervenciones apropiadas del desfibrilador (13,7%; 17,9% y 18,8%; p = 0,4), pero sí en el de inapropiadas (8,2%; 7,1% y 12,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,03). Conclusiones: Las tasas de mortalidad por cualquier causa y por causa cardiovascular en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular fueron similares a las del resto de los pacientes remitidos para implante de desfibrilador. También presentaron similares tasas de intervenciones apropiadas. Estos datos parecen indicar que el implante de un desfibrilador en este grupo confiere un beneficio similar al que obtienen los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica y miocardiopatía dilatada (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. Results: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n = 659; 56.1%) or dilated (n = 442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P = .2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P = .1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P = .4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P = .03). Conclusions: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy (AU)

Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n=659; 56.1%) or dilated (n=442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P=.2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P=.1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P=.4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy.

Etiology and Programming Effects on Shock Efficacy in ICD Recipients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess the efficacy of high-energy shocks to restore rhythm and predictors of success in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 162 patients included in the UMBRELLA study that experienced one or more episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) for which ICD shocks of at least 30 Joules were delivered (appropriate high-energy shocks) were analyzed. In total, 456 ventricular arrhythmia episodes were registered. Forty four episodes (9.6%) from 39 patients (24%) had at least one ineffective high-energy shock delivered. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was more frequent among patients with unsuccessful shocks (10.3% vs 2.4%). Patients with ineffective shocks had higher proportion of sustained monomorphic ventricular arrhythmias (86.4%; the other 13.6% were sustained polymorphic and ventricular fibrillation [VF]) compared with patients with all their shocks effective (62.9%, P = 0.02). No statistical differences were found between groups in time from detection to the high-energy shock delivery, in tachycardia cycle length, or in antitachycardia pacing, but patients with ineffective high-energy shocks had higher proportion of previously ineffective low-energy shock (9.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found a substantial rate of ineffective high-energy shocks for the treatment of VT or VF in patients with ICD. High-energy shock efficacy seems to be reduced by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and by the administration of previous low-energy shocks.