Vincent Floré

Significance of Intermediate Values of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

Background— The fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of 0.75 has been validated against ischemic testing, whereas the FFR value of 0.80 has been widely accepted to guide clinical decision making. However, revascularization when FFR is 0.76 to 0.80, within the so-called gray zone, is still debatable. Methods and Results— From February 1997 to June 2013, all patients with single-segment disease and an FFR value within the gray zone or within the 2 neighboring FFR strata (0.70–0.75 and 0.81–0.85) were included. Study end points consisted of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) up to 5 years. Of 17 380 FFR measurements, 1459 patients were included. Of them, 449 patients were treated with revascularization and 1010 patients were treated with medical therapy. In the gray zone, the major adverse cardiovascular events rate was similar (37 [13.9%] versus 21 [11.2%], respectively; P=0.3) between medical therapy and revascularization, whereas a strong trend toward a higher rate of death or myocardial infarction (25 [9.4] versus 9 [4.8], P=0.06) and overall death (20 [7.5] versus 6 [3.2], P=0.059) was observed in the medical therapy group. Among medical therapy patients, a significant step-up increase in major adverse cardiovascular events rate was observed across the 3 FFR strata, especially with proximal lesion location. In revascularization patients, the major adverse cardiovascular events rate was not different across the 3 FFR strata. Conclusions— FFR in and around the gray zone bears a major prognostic value, especially in proximal lesions. These data confirm that FFR⩽0.80 is valid to guide clinical decision making.

Rationale, objectives, and design of the EUTrigTreat clinical study: a prospective observational study for arrhythmia risk stratification and assessment of interrelationships among repolarization markers and genotype

Aims The EUTrigTreat clinical study has been designed as a prospective multicentre observational study and aims to (i) risk stratify patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for mortality and shock risk using multiple novel and established risk markers, (ii) explore a link between repolarization biomarkers and genetics of ion (Ca2+, Na+, K+) metabolism, (iii) compare the results of invasive and non-invasive electrophysiological (EP) testing, (iv) assess changes of non-invasive risk stratification tests over time, and (v) associate arrythmogenomic risk through 19 candidate genes. Methods and results Patients with clinical ICD indication are eligible for the trial. Upon inclusion, patients will undergo non-invasive risk stratification, including beat-to-beat variability of repolarization (BVR), T-wave alternans, T-wave morphology variables, ambient arrhythmias from Holter, heart rate variability, and heart rate turbulence. Non-invasive or invasive programmed electrical stimulation will assess inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias, with the latter including recordings of monophasic action potentials and assessment of restitution properties. Established candidate genes are screened for variants. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality, while one of the secondary endpoints is ICD shock risk. A mean follow-up of 3.3 years is anticipated. Non-invasive testing will be repeated annually during follow-up. It has been calculated that 700 patients are required to identify risk predictors of the primary endpoint, with a possible increase to 1000 patients based on interim risk analysis. Conclusion The EUTrigTreat clinical study aims to overcome current shortcomings in sudden cardiac death risk stratification and to answer several related research questions. The initial patient recruitment is expected to be completed in July 2012, and follow-up is expected to end in September 2014. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209494.

Changes in Implantation Patterns and Therapy Rates of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators over Time in Ischemic and Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients.

Clinical guidelines on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy changed significantly in the last decades with potential inherent effects on therapy efficacy. We aimed to study therapy rates in time and the association between therapies and mortality.

Saline-Induced Coronary Hyperemia: Mechanisms and Effects on Left Ventricular Function

Background— During thermodilution-based assessment of volumetric coronary blood flow, we observed that intracoronary infusion of saline increased coronary flow. This study aims to quantify the extent and unravel the mechanisms of saline-induced hyperemia. Methods and Results— Thirty-three patients were studied; in 24 patients, intracoronary Doppler flow velocity measurements were performed at rest, after intracoronary adenosine, and during increasing infusion rates of saline at room temperature through a dedicated catheter with 4 lateral side holes. In 9 patients, global longitudinal strain and flow propagation velocity were assessed by transthoracic echocardiography during a prolonged intracoronary saline infusion. Taking adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia as reference, intracoronary infusion of saline at rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mL/min induced 6%, 46%, 111%, and 112% of maximal hyperemia, respectively. There was a close agreement of maximal saline- and adenosine-induced coronary flow reserve (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.922; P<0.001). The same infusion rates given through 1 end hole (n=6) or in the contralateral artery (n=6) did not induce a significant increase in flow velocity. Intracoronary saline given on top of an intravenous infusion of adenosine did not further increase flow. Intracoronary saline infusion did not affect blood pressure, systolic, or diastolic left ventricular function. Heart rate decreased by 15% during saline infusion (P=0.021). Conclusions— Intracoronary infusion of saline at room temperature through a dedicated catheter for coronary thermodilution induces steady-state maximal hyperemia at a flow rate ≥15 mL/min. These findings open new possibilities to measure maximal absolute coronary blood flow and minimal microcirculatory resistance.

Microvolt T-wave alternans and beat-to-beat variability of repolarization during early postischemic remodeling in a pig heart

BACKGROUND Repolarization variability is considered to predict sudden cardiac death. T-wave alternans (TWA) has been the subject of exhaustive research, whereas beat-to-beat variability of repolarization (BVR) is a new parameter that possibly predicts proarrhythmia. How these parameters interact has not been tested. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare TWA and BVR as predictors of proarrhythmic substrate early after myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS In nine pigs, MI was induced by 1-hour occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at day 21. Six sham pigs served as control. Spectral TWA was tested during right atrial pacing before induction of MI and after 21 days. BVR was calculated from 60 consecutive QT intervals. RESULTS Magnetic resonance imaging showed transmural MI. TWA was negative in all pigs at clinical threshold rate and equally present in MI versus sham pigs at higher rates (170 bpm: 55% vs 50% positive TWA). In MI pigs, BVR of QT intervals increased significantly during acute ischemia (2.44 ± 0.43 ms vs 3.55 ± 0.41 ms, P <.01) and even more on day 21 (5.80 ± 1.12 ms), but it differed significantly from sham (2.14 ± 0.54 ms, P <.01). A clinical ventricular tachycardia induction protocol was positive in 2 of 8 MI pigs and in none of 6 shams. CONCLUSION In early remodeling after MI, BVR at intrinsic heart rate was a consistent phenomenon, whereas TWA during atrial pacing or baseline QT-interval changes were not. TWA and BVR could reflect different post-MI remodeling processes. BVR may be a new technique for predicting a potentially proarrhythmic substrate in the early postinfarction period.

Inferior and anterior QRS fragmentation have different prognostic value in patients who received an implantable defibrillator in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

AIMS QRS fragmentation (fQRS) has been proposed as a predictor of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and all-cause mortality in ischemic (ICM) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients. However the value of fQRS in patients with a LVEF <35% is a matter of debate. METHODS All consecutive patients with an indication for an ICD in primary prevention of SCD were included in a retrospective registry from 1996 until 2013. Twelve lead electrocardiograms before implant were analyzed for the presence of fQRS in different regions. Adjusted Cox regression analysis for first appropriate ICD shock (AS) and all-cause mortality was performed. RESULTS In total 407 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 4.2±3.3y (age 60.6±11.9y, 15.7% female and 52.8% ICM). fQRS was present in 46.7% of patients, predominantly inferior (30.7%) followed by anterior (21.4%) and lateral (11.1%) coronary artery territories. fQRS was significantly more prevalent in ICM (p=0.004). Inferior fQRS was an independent predictor of a first AS within 1y (HR 2.55, 95%CI 1.28-5.07) and 3y (HR 1.90, 95%CI 1.14-3.18) after implantation. Whereas, anterior fQRS was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality within 1y (HR 4.58, 95%CI 1.29-16.19), 3y (HR 3.92, 95%CI 1.77-8.65) and the complete follow-up (HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.33-3.69). Lateral fQRS was only a predictor of late (>3y of follow-up) all-cause mortality (HR 2.04, 95%CI 1.09-3.81). CONCLUSIONS fQRS in a specific coronary artery territory might be promising to discriminate arrhythmic from mortality risk. Inferior fQRS was a predictor of early arrhythmia, while anterior fQRS was related to mortality.

Can Body Surface Microvolt T-Wave Alternans Distinguish Concordant and Discordant Intracardiac Alternans?

There is convincing experimental evidence that cellular action potential duration (APD) alternans is arrhythmogenic but its relationship with body surface microvolt T‐wave alternans (MTWA) remains unclear. We investigated the relationship between MTWA and APD alternans induced by alternating cycle length (CL) pacing in a pig model.

Implantable cardioverter/defibrillator interventions in primary prevention: do current implantation criteria really predict ICD interventions?

BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials have proven the efficacy of implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in primary prevention. However,long-term data on the incidence of appropriate and inappropriate interventions in real life and on the predictive value of commonly used clinical variables to guide patient selection are scarce. METHODS We retrospectively studied 101 patients who received an ICD for primary prophylaxis of SCD: 63.4% with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and 36.6% with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM). The mean follow-up period was 26.2 (+/- 14.8; median 27.8; range 5.6-70.5) months. Age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), QRS duration, NYHA class and electrophysiological study (EPS) outcome were evaluated as predictors of ICD intervention. RESULTS At 2 years the cumulative incidence of appropriate (17.5% in IHD; 28% in IDCM; P= 0.63) and inappropriate (12.8% in IHD, 15.4% in IDCM; P = 0.62) interventions was similar in both groups. Atrial fibrillation was the most common cause of inappropriate interventions in the IHD group, sinus tachycardia in the IDCM group. Advanced age was associated with less inappropriate interventions (HR: 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98); P < 0.01), and a better LVEF with less appropriate interventions (HR: 0.97 (95% Cl 0.94-0.99); P < 0.01). This amounted in a significant absolute difference in the number of appropriate interventions between the group with a LVEF < 25% and 25-34% after 3 years of follow-up of 42% in IHD (48% vs 6%). A prolonged QRS duration was associated with a slightly elevated risk for appropriate interventions only in the IHD group (HR: 1.01 (95% CI 1.00-1.03); P = 0.04). On the other hand, increased NYHA class was only associated with increased risk for appropriate interventions in the IDCM group (HR: 5.24 (95% CI1.11-24.74); P= 0.04). No significant statistical association was found between a positive EPS and appropriate or inappropriate interventions. CONCLUSIONS In primary prevention, during a mean follow-up of 2 years, one in five patients had a possibly live-saving appropriate intervention. However, the incidence of inappropriate interventions was substantial. Predictors for appropriate interventions were: (i) LVEF in the total study group, (ii) NYHA class in the IDCM group and (iii) QRS duration in the IHD group.

Introducing ICD-resistant mortality as an end point to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Abstract Objective: A new end point called ICD-resistant mortality was evaluated to assess the clinical efficacy of ICD implantations. Methods and results: In 302 ICD patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, we investigated which clinical parameters predicted useful ICD implantations using cumulative incidence competing risk analysis. Implantation was deemed clinically useful when the ICD provided appropriate therapy and the patient survived implantation by 1 year and the first shock by 30 days. ICD-resistant mortality (ICDRM) was defined as death within 30 days after the first shock, within 1 year of implantation or without previous appropriate ICD therapy. After 5 years, ICDRM occurred in 23% of implantations, while 36% were clinically useful. After multivariable analysis, ICDRM was associated with LVEF <35% (HR: 2.63; p = .005), beta-blocker dose <50% (HR: 2.0; p = .01) and anterior or diffuse infarct location (HR: 3.61; p = .001 and HR: 2.89; p = .02). Useful ICD implantations were associated with beta-blocker dose <50% (HR: 1.64; p = .02) and non-anterior infarct location (HR: 3.22 vs anterior and 1.59 vs diffuse; combined p<.001). Conclusions: Five years after implantation, an ICD could be classified as useful in 1 out of 3, while ICDRM occurred in one out of four patients. At 10 years, up to 80% of implantations could be categorized. Lower LVEF was related with significantly higher incidence of ICDRM. Anterior infarcts were associated with more ICDRM and less useful implantations than non-anterior infarcts. Future risk stratification for ICD should focus more on the discrimination between arrhythmic risk, probably preventable by ICDs and ICD-resistant mortality risk.

The impact of changes in LVEF and renal function on the prognosis of ICD patients after elective device replacement

A proportion of patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) in prevention of sudden cardiac death will only receive their first appropriate ICD therapy (AT) after device replacement. Clinical reassessment at the time of replacement could be helpful to guide the decision to replace or not in the future.