David S. Cannom

IMPROVED SURVIVAL WITH AN IMPLANTED DEFIBRILLATOR IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY DISEASE AT HIGH RISK FOR VENTRICULAR ARRHYTHMIA

BACKGROUND Unsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction is associated with a two-year mortality rate of about 30 percent. We studied whether prophylactic therapy with an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, as compared with conventional medical therapy, would improve survival in this high-risk group of patients. METHODS Over the course of five years, 196 patients in New York Heart Association functional class I, II, or III with prior myocardial infarction; a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.35; a documented episode of asymptomatic unsustained ventricular tachycardia; and inducible, nonsuppressible ventricular tachyarrhythmia on electrophysiologic study were randomly assigned to receive an implanted defibrillator (n = 95) or conventional medical therapy (n=101). We used a two-sided sequential design with death from any cause as the end point. RESULTS The base-line characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar. During an average follow-up of 27 months, there were 15 deaths in the defibrillator group (11 from cardiac causes) and 39 deaths in the conventional-therapy group (27 from cardiac causes) (hazard ratio for overall mortality, 0.46; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.82; P=0.009). There was no evidence that amiodarone, beta-blockers, or any other antiarrhythmic therapy had a significant influence on the observed hazard ratio. CONCLUSIONS In patients with a prior myocardial infarction who are at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmia, prophylactic therapy with an implanted defibrillator leads to improved survival as compared with conventional medical therapy.

A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias

BACKGROUND Patients who survive life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias are at risk for recurrent arrhythmias. They can be treated with either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drugs, but the relative efficacy of these two treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS To address this issue, we conducted a randomized comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients with ventricular tachycardia also had either syncope or other serious cardiac symptoms, along with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. One group of patients was treated with implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator; the other received class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone at empirically determined doses. Fifty-six clinical centers screened all patients who presented with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation during a period of nearly four years. Of 1016 patients (45 percent of whom had ventricular fibrillation, and 55 percent ventricular tachycardia), 507 were randomly assigned to treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and 509 to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS Follow-up was complete for 1013 patients (99.7 percent). Overall survival was greater with the implantable defibrillator, with unadjusted estimates of 89.3 percent, as compared with 82.3 percent in the antiarrhythmic-drug group at one year, 81.6 percent versus 74.7 percent at two years, and 75.4 percent versus 64.1 percent at three years (P<0.02). The corresponding reductions in mortality (with 95 percent confidence limits) with the implantable defibrillator were 39+/-20 percent, 27+/-21 percent, and 31+/-21 percent CONCLUSIONS Among survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia causing severe symptoms, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for increasing overall survival.

Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy for the Prevention of Heart-Failure Events

BACKGROUND This trial was designed to determine whether cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing would reduce the risk of death or heart-failure events in patients with mild cardiac symptoms, a reduced ejection fraction, and a wide QRS complex. METHODS During a 4.5-year period, we enrolled and followed 1820 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, an ejection fraction of 30% or less, a QRS duration of 130 msec or more, and New York Heart Association class I or II symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive CRT plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (1089 patients) or an ICD alone (731 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause or a nonfatal heart-failure event (whichever came first). Heart-failure events were diagnosed by physicians who were aware of the treatment assignments, but they were adjudicated by a committee that was unaware of assignments. RESULTS During an average follow-up of 2.4 years, the primary end point occurred in 187 of 1089 patients in the CRT-ICD group (17.2%) and 185 of 731 patients in the ICD-only group (25.3%) (hazard ratio in the CRT-ICD group, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.84; P=0.001). The benefit did not differ significantly between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The superiority of CRT was driven by a 41% reduction in the risk of heart-failure events, a finding that was evident primarily in a prespecified subgroup of patients with a QRS duration of 150 msec or more. CRT was associated with a significant reduction in left ventricular volumes and improvement in the ejection fraction. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the overall risk of death, with a 3% annual mortality rate in each treatment group. Serious adverse events were infrequent in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS CRT combined with ICD decreased the risk of heart-failure events in relatively asymptomatic patients with a low ejection fraction and wide QRS complex. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00180271.)

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disturbance, is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. Although it is often associated with heart disease, AF occurs in many patients with no detectable disease. Hemodynamic impairment and thromboembolic events result in significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. Accordingly, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) created a committee of experts to establish guidelines for management of this arrhythmia. The committee was composed of 8 members representing the ACC and AHA, 4 representing the ESC, 1 from the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE), and a representative of the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Center representing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s report on Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly. This document was reviewed by 3 official reviewers nominated by the ACC, 3 nominated by the AHA, and 3 nominated by the ESC, as well as by the ACC Clinical Electrophysiology Committee, the AHA ECG and Arrhythmia Committee, NASPE, and 25 reviewers nominated by the writing committee. The document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACC, AHA, and ESC and officially endorsed by NASPE. These guidelines will be reviewed annually by the task force and will be considered current unless the task force revises or withdraws them from distribution. The committee conducted a comprehensive review of the literature from 1980 to June 2000 relevant to AF using the following databases: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), and Best Evidence. Searches were limited to English language sources and to human subjects. ### A. Atrial Fibrillation AF is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterized by uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of atrial mechanical function. On the electrocardiogram (ECG), AF …Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disturbance, is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. Although it is often associated with heart disease, AF occurs in many patients with no detectable disease. Hemodynamic impairment and thromboembolic events result in

Reduction in Inappropriate Therapy and Mortality through ICD Programming

BACKGROUND The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality among patients at risk for fatal arrhythmias, but inappropriate ICD activations are frequent, with potential adverse effects. METHODS We randomly assigned 1500 patients with a primary-prevention indication to receive an ICD with one of three programming configurations. The primary objective was to determine whether programmed high-rate therapy (with a 2.5-second delay before the initiation of therapy at a heart rate of ≥200 beats per minute) or delayed therapy (with a 60-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute, a 12-second delay at 200 to 249 beats per minute, and a 2.5-second delay at ≥250 beats per minute) was associated with a decrease in the number of patients with a first occurrence of inappropriate antitachycardia pacing or shocks, as compared with conventional programming (with a 2.5-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute and a 1.0-second delay at ≥200 beats per minute). RESULTS During an average follow-up of 1.4 years, high-rate therapy and delayed ICD therapy, as compared with conventional device programming, were associated with reductions in a first occurrence of inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.34; P<0.001; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.40; P<0.001) and reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.85; P=0.01; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences in procedure-related adverse events among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Programming of ICD therapies for tachyarrhythmias of 200 beats per minute or higher or with a prolonged delay in therapy at 170 beats per minute or higher, as compared with conventional programming, was associated with reductions in inappropriate therapy and all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MADIT-RIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00947310.).

Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks in MADIT II : Frequency, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Survival Impact

OBJECTIVES This study sought to identify the incidence and outcome related to inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, that is, those for nonventricular arrhythmias. BACKGROUND The MADIT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial) II showed that prophylactic ICD implantation improves survival in post-myocardial infarction patients with reduced ejection fraction. Inappropriate ICD shocks are common adverse consequences that may impair quality of life. METHODS Stored ICD electrograms from all shock episodes were adjudicated centrally. An inappropriate shock episode was defined as an episode during which 1 or more inappropriate shocks occurred; another inappropriate ICD episode occurring within 5 min was not counted. Programmed parameters for patients with and without inappropriate shocks were compared. RESULTS One or more inappropriate shocks occurred in 83 (11.5%) of the 719 MADIT II ICD patients. Inappropriate shock episodes constituted 184 of the 590 total shock episodes (31.2%). Smoking, prior atrial fibrillation, diastolic hypertension, and antecedent appropriate shock predicted inappropriate shock occurrence. Atrial fibrillation was the most common trigger for inappropriate shock (44%), followed by supraventricular tachycardia (36%), and then abnormal sensing (20%). The stability detection algorithm was programmed less frequently in patients receiving inappropriate shocks (17% vs. 36%, p = 0.030), whereas other programming parameters did not differ significantly from those without inappropriate shocks. Importantly, patients with inappropriate shocks had a greater likelihood of all-cause mortality in follow-up (hazard ratio 2.29, p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS Inappropriate ICD shocks occurred commonly in the MADIT II study, and were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT)

Background— This study aimed to determine whether QRS morphology identifies patients who benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) and whether it influences the risk of primary and secondary end points in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Methods and Results— Baseline 12-lead ECGs were evaluated with regard to QRS morphology. Heart failure event or death was the primary end point of the trial. Death, heart failure event, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation were secondary end points. Among 1817 patients with available sinus rhythm ECGs at baseline, there were 1281 (70%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), 228 (13%) with right bundle-branch block, and 308 (17%) with nonspecific intraventricular conduction disturbances. The latter 2 groups were defined as non-LBBB groups. Hazard ratios for the primary end point for comparisons of CRT-D patients versus patients who only received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were significantly (P<0.001) lower in LBBB patients (0.47; P<0.001) than in non-LBBB patients (1.24; P=0.257). The risk of ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or death was decreased significantly in CRT-D patients with LBBB but not in non-LBBB patients. Echocardiographic parameters showed significantly (P<0.001) greater reduction in left ventricular volumes and increase in ejection fraction with CRT-D in LBBB than in non-LBBB patients. Conclusions— Heart failure patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and ejection fraction ⩽30% and LBBB derive substantial clinical benefit from CRT-D: a reduction in heart failure progression and a reduction in the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. No clinical benefit was observed in patients with a non-LBBB QRS pattern (right bundle-branch block or intraventricular conduction disturbances). Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

Left Ventricular Lead Position and Clinical Outcome in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Trial

Background— An important determinant of successful cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is the position of the left ventricular (LV) pacing lead. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the LV lead position on outcome in patients randomized to cardiac resynchronization-defibrillation in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study. Methods and Results— The location of the LV lead was assessed by means of coronary venograms and chest x-rays recorded at the time of device implantation. The LV lead location was classified along the short axis into an anterior, lateral, or posterior position and along the long axis into a basal, midventricular, or apical region. The primary end point of MADIT-CRT was heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death, whichever came first. The LV lead position was assessed in 799 patients, (55% patients ≥65 years of age, 26% female, 10% LV ejection fraction ⩽25%, 55% ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 71% left bundle-branch block) with a follow-up of 29±11 months. The extent of cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit was similar for leads in the anterior, lateral, or posterior position (P=0.652). The apical lead location compared with leads located in the nonapical position (basal or midventricular region) was associated with a significantly increased risk for heart failure/death (hazard ratio=1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.71; P=0.019) after adjustment for the clinical covariates. The apical lead position was also associated with an increased risk for death (hazard ratio=2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 5.97; P=0.004). Conclusion— LV leads positioned in the apical region were associated with an unfavorable outcome, suggesting that this lead location should be avoided in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.