Predictors of mortality and heart transplantation in patients with Chagas' cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

AIMS: Data on long-term follow-up of patients with Chagas' heart disease (ChHD) receiving a secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are limited and its benefit is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of ChHD patients who received a secondary prevention ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the outcomes of consecutive ChHD patients referred to our Institution from 2006 to 2014 for a secondary prevention ICD [89 patients; 58 men; mean age 56 ± 11 years; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 42 ± 12%]. The primary outcome included a composite of death from any cause or heart transplantation. After a mean follow-up of 59 ± 27 months, the primary outcome occurred in 23 patients (5.3% per year). Multivariate analysis showed that LVEF < 35% [hazard ratio (HR) 4.64; P < 0.01] and age ≥ 65 years (HR 3.19; P < 0.01) were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Using these two risk factors, a risk score was developed, and lower- (no risk factors), intermediate- (one risk factor), and higher-risk (two risk factors) groups were recognized with an annual rate of primary outcome of 1.4%, 7.4%, and 20.4%, respectively. A high burden of appropriate ICD therapies (16% per year) and electrical storms were documented, however, ICD interventions did not impact on the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Among ChHD patients receiving a secondary prevention ICD, older age (≥65 years) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF < 35%) portend a poor outcome and were associated with increased risk of death or heart transplantation. Most patients received appropriate ICD therapies, however, ICD interventions did not impact on the primary outcome.

Is It Conceivable to Still Perform the Cut and Sew Cox Maze III Procedure in the Current Era?

To determine whether cut and sew Cox maze III procedure is still associated with adequate safety endpoints when performed in conjunction with other open-heart procedures. Between January 2008 and January 2015, 113 consecutive adult patients were submitted to cut and sew Cox maze III procedure in association with other operations for structural heart disease. Mean age was 49 years and 80 (70.8%) were females. Longstanding or persistent atrial fibrillation has occurred in 87.6% and rheumatic heart disease in 80.7%. Valve surgery was performed in 98.2%. The number of associated procedures was correlated with morbidity and hospital mortality. Overall mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping times were 129 ±â€¯26 and 105 ±â€¯23 minutes, respectively. Hospital mortality was 1.77%, re-exploration for bleeding 0.9%, cerebrovascular accident 1.8%, and acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis 2.6%. The greater number of associated procedures did not correlate with poorer safety outcomes. Permanent pacemaker was required in 18.2% of those with three associated procedures, as opposed to 4% with two procedures and no requirement with one procedure (P = .01). Frequency of sinus rhythm was 88%, 88%, and 85% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. In a contemporary single-center cohort of predominantly rheumatic patients, the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation associated with structural heart disease by means of cut and sew Cox maze III procedure is safe, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Surgical complexity, defined by number of associated procedures, did not translate into poorer safety endpoints, except for greater need of permanent pacemaker.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with Chagas' heart disease: comparison with a control group treated with amiodarone alone.

AIMS: Evidence is inconclusive concerning the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for secondary prevention of mortality in patients with Chagas' heart disease (ChHD). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ChHD patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), who were treated either with ICD implantation plus amiodarone or with amiodarone alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ICD group [76 patients; 48 men; age, 57 ± 11 years; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 39 ± 12%] and the historical control group treated with amiodarone alone (28 patients; 18 men; age, 54 ± 10 years; LVEF, 41 ± 10%) had comparable baseline characteristics, except for a higher use of beta-blockers in the ICD group (P < 0.0001). Amiodarone was also used in 90% of the ICD group. Therapy with ICD plus amiodarone resulted in a 72% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (P = 0.007) and a 95% reduced risk of sudden death (P = 0.006) compared with amiodarone-only therapy. The survival benefit of ICD was greatest in patients with LVEF < 40% (P = 0.01) and was not significant in those with LVEF ≥ 40% (P = 0.15). Appropriate ICD therapies occurred in 72% of patients and the rates of interventions were similar across patients with LVEF < 40% and ≥40%. CONCLUSION: Compared with amiodarone-only therapy, ICD implantation plus amiodarone reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden death in ChHD patients with life-threatening VAs. Patients with LVEF < 40% derived significantly more survival benefit from ICD therapy. The majority of ICD-treated patients received appropriate therapies regardless of the LV systolic function.