Risk of ventricular arrhythmias following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator change in patients with recovered ejection fraction: Implications for shared decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines indicate primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for most patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. Some patients' LVEFs improve during the life of their first ICD. In patients with recovered LVEF who never received appropriate ICD therapy, the utility of generator replacement upon battery depletion remains unclear. Here, we evaluate ICD therapy based on LVEF at the time of generator change, to educate shared decision-making regarding whether to replace the depleted ICD. METHODS: We followed patients with a primary-prevention ICD who underwent generator change. Patients who received appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) before generator change were excluded. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapy, adjusted for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: Among 951 generator changes, 423 met inclusion criteria. During 3.4 ± 2.2 years follow-up, 78 (18%) received appropriate therapy for VT/VF. Compared to patients with recovered LVEF > 35% (n = 161 [38%]), those with LVEF ≤ 35% (n = 262 [62%]) were more likely to require ICD therapy (p = .002; Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year event rates: 12.7% vs. 25.0%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the optimal LVEF cutoff for VT/VF prediction to be 45%, the use of which further improved risk stratification (p < .001), with Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year rates 6.2% versus 25.1%. CONCLUSION: Following ICD generator change, patients with primary-prevention ICDs and recovered LVEF have significantly lower risk of subsequent ventricular arrhythmias compared to those with persistent LVEF depression. Risk stratification at LVEF 45% offers significant additional negative predictive value over a 35% cutoff, without a significant loss in sensitivity. These data may be useful during shared decision-making at the time of ICD generator battery depletion.

Acute Vitiligo Repigmentation in the Setting of Suspected Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Background: Sarcoidosis is a noncaseating granulomatous disease that predominately occurs in the lungs. Vitiligo is the most common depigmentation disorder worldwide. Both diseases are autoimmune-mediated, suggesting that one could have implications for the other. However, relatively few reports have been published about patients presenting with coinciding symptoms of the 2 diseases. We report the case of a patient who presented with focal repigmentation of vitiligo with suspected pulmonary sarcoidosis. Case Report: A 63-year-old female with a medical history of diffuse vitiligo reported to the emergency department with the chief complaint of right lower extremity weakness and numbness for 1 week. She reported that she had had a chronic productive cough for the prior 4 to 6 months and had unintentionally lost 50 to 60 pounds in the prior 3 months. At that time, she began to notice numerous hyperpigmented macules and patches on both forearms and her face. Chest x-ray and chest computed tomography demonstrated bilateral hilar and mediastinal lymph node enlargement with multiple bilateral pulmonary nodules. Cytology and flow cytometry were negative for evidence of B- or T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with evidence of granulomatous inflammation. Conclusion: This clinical presentation suggests a potential interplay between 2 unique disease processes. While both vitiligo and sarcoidosis share common autoimmune etiologies, little data are available about management when they coincide. This case highlights a patient with 2 seemingly distinct clinical manifestations that could yield further clinical information in the management of both diseases separately and together.

Impact of Preinfection Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Outcomes in COVID-19 Infection.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has high infectivity and causes extensive morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular disease is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in COVID-19, but baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in particular has not been evaluated thoroughly in this context. We analyzed patients in our state's largest health system who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 20 and May 15, 2020. Inclusion required an available echocardiogram within 1 year prior to diagnosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. LVEF was analyzed both as a continuous variable and using a cutoff of 40%. Among 396 patients (67 ± 16 years, 191 [48%] male, 235 [59%] Black, 59 [15%] LVEF ≤40%), 289 (73%) required hospital admission, and 116 (29%) died during 85 ± 63 days of follow-up. Echocardiograms, performed a median of 57 (IQR 11-122) days prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, showed a similar distribution of LVEF between survivors and decedents (P = 0.84). Receiver operator characteristic analysis revealed no predictive ability of LVEF for mortality, and there was no difference in survival among those with LVEF ≤40% versus >40% (P = 0.49). Multivariable analysis did not change these relationships. Similarly, there was no difference in LVEF based on whether the patient required hospital admission (56 ± 13 vs 55 ± 13, P = 0.38), and patients with a depressed LVEF did not require admission more frequently than their preserved-LVEF peers (P = 0.87). A premorbid history of dyspnea consistent with symptomatic heart failure was not associated with mortality (P = 0.74). Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, pre-COVID-19 LVEF was not a risk factor for death or hospitalization.

Class 1C antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Class 1C antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are effective first-line agents for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. However, these agents commonly are avoided in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD), due to known increased risk in the postmyocardial infarction population. Whether 1C AADs are safe in patients with CAD but without clinical ischemia or infarct is unknown. Reduced coronary flow capacity (CFC) on positron emission tomography (PET) reliably identifies myocardial regions supplied by vessels with CAD causing flow limitation. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether treatment with 1C AADs increases mortality in patients without known CAD but with CFC indicating significantly reduced coronary blood flow. METHODS: In this pilot study, we compared patients with AF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% who were treated with 1C AADs to age-matched AF patients without 1C AAD treatment. No patient had clinically evident CAD (ie, reversible perfusion defect, known ≥70% epicardial lesion, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or myocardial infarction). All patients had PET-based quantification of stress myocardial blood flow and CFC. Death was assessed by clinical follow-up and social security death index search. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients with 1C AAD exposure were matched to 78 controls. Over a mean follow-up of 2.0 years, the groups had similar survival (P = .54). Among patients with CFC indicating the presence of occult CAD (ie, reduced CFC involving ≥50% of myocardium), 1C-treated patients had survival similar to (P = .44) those not treated with 1C agents. CONCLUSIONS: In a limited population of AF patients with preserved left ventricle function and PET-CFC indicating occult CAD, treatment with 1C AADs appears not to increase mortality. A larger study would be required to confidently assess the safety of these drugs in this context.