Ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary versus secondary prophylaxis indications

Amin Manuchehry, Kartik Agusala, Mauro Montevecchi, Alan Kadish, Rod Passman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Data on the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death are limited and may be biased by delays in rhythm recording and selection bias in survivors. As a result, the relative contributions of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) (cycle length [CL] > 260 ms), monomorphic fast VT (FVT) (CL ≤ 260 ms), and polymorphic VT (PMVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) have not been well characterized nor compared in patients with and without prior arrhythmic events. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients with primary or secondary implant indications was used to evaluate intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) for the first spontaneous VT/VF resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. EGMs were categorized into VT, FVT, and PMVT/VF based on CL and morphologic criteria. Results: Of 616 implants, 145 patients (58 [40%] primary indications) received appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF over mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 years. Primary implants had more diabetes (28% vs 12%; P = 0.02) and less antiarrhythmic use (15% vs 33%; P = 0.02). In those patients with spontaneous arrhythmia, PMVT/VF occurred in 20.7% of primary versus 21.8% of secondary implants, FVT in 19.0% versus 21.8%, and VT in 60.3% versus 56.4%, respectively (P = 0.88). Spontaneous VT CL was similar regardless of implant indication (284 ± 56 [primary] vs 286 ± 67 ms [secondary]; P = 0.92). Conclusions: Monomorphic VT is the most common cause of appropriate ICD therapy regardless of implant indication. These results provide insight into the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death and have implications for the use of interventions designed to limit ICD shocks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)571-576
Number of pages6
JournalPACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Ventricular Tachycardia
Tachycardia
Ventricular Fibrillation
Sudden Cardiac Death
Cardiac Electrophysiologic Techniques
Selection Bias
Survivors
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Shock
Cohort Studies
Therapeutics
Retrospective Studies

Keywords

  • Defibrillation-ICD
  • Electrophysiology-clinical
  • VT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary versus secondary prophylaxis indications. / Manuchehry, Amin; Agusala, Kartik; Montevecchi, Mauro; Kadish, Alan; Passman, Rod.

In: PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, Vol. 34, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 571-576.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d43288b49694504a580958376307a78,
title = "Ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary versus secondary prophylaxis indications",
abstract = "Introduction: Data on the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death are limited and may be biased by delays in rhythm recording and selection bias in survivors. As a result, the relative contributions of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) (cycle length [CL] > 260 ms), monomorphic fast VT (FVT) (CL ≤ 260 ms), and polymorphic VT (PMVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) have not been well characterized nor compared in patients with and without prior arrhythmic events. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients with primary or secondary implant indications was used to evaluate intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) for the first spontaneous VT/VF resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. EGMs were categorized into VT, FVT, and PMVT/VF based on CL and morphologic criteria. Results: Of 616 implants, 145 patients (58 [40{\%}] primary indications) received appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF over mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 years. Primary implants had more diabetes (28{\%} vs 12{\%}; P = 0.02) and less antiarrhythmic use (15{\%} vs 33{\%}; P = 0.02). In those patients with spontaneous arrhythmia, PMVT/VF occurred in 20.7{\%} of primary versus 21.8{\%} of secondary implants, FVT in 19.0{\%} versus 21.8{\%}, and VT in 60.3{\%} versus 56.4{\%}, respectively (P = 0.88). Spontaneous VT CL was similar regardless of implant indication (284 ± 56 [primary] vs 286 ± 67 ms [secondary]; P = 0.92). Conclusions: Monomorphic VT is the most common cause of appropriate ICD therapy regardless of implant indication. These results provide insight into the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death and have implications for the use of interventions designed to limit ICD shocks.",
keywords = "Defibrillation-ICD, Electrophysiology-clinical, VT",
author = "Amin Manuchehry and Kartik Agusala and Mauro Montevecchi and Alan Kadish and Rod Passman",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.03004.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "571--576",
journal = "PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "0147-8389",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary versus secondary prophylaxis indications

AU - Manuchehry, Amin

AU - Agusala, Kartik

AU - Montevecchi, Mauro

AU - Kadish, Alan

AU - Passman, Rod

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Introduction: Data on the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death are limited and may be biased by delays in rhythm recording and selection bias in survivors. As a result, the relative contributions of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) (cycle length [CL] > 260 ms), monomorphic fast VT (FVT) (CL ≤ 260 ms), and polymorphic VT (PMVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) have not been well characterized nor compared in patients with and without prior arrhythmic events. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients with primary or secondary implant indications was used to evaluate intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) for the first spontaneous VT/VF resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. EGMs were categorized into VT, FVT, and PMVT/VF based on CL and morphologic criteria. Results: Of 616 implants, 145 patients (58 [40%] primary indications) received appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF over mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 years. Primary implants had more diabetes (28% vs 12%; P = 0.02) and less antiarrhythmic use (15% vs 33%; P = 0.02). In those patients with spontaneous arrhythmia, PMVT/VF occurred in 20.7% of primary versus 21.8% of secondary implants, FVT in 19.0% versus 21.8%, and VT in 60.3% versus 56.4%, respectively (P = 0.88). Spontaneous VT CL was similar regardless of implant indication (284 ± 56 [primary] vs 286 ± 67 ms [secondary]; P = 0.92). Conclusions: Monomorphic VT is the most common cause of appropriate ICD therapy regardless of implant indication. These results provide insight into the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death and have implications for the use of interventions designed to limit ICD shocks.

AB - Introduction: Data on the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death are limited and may be biased by delays in rhythm recording and selection bias in survivors. As a result, the relative contributions of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) (cycle length [CL] > 260 ms), monomorphic fast VT (FVT) (CL ≤ 260 ms), and polymorphic VT (PMVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) have not been well characterized nor compared in patients with and without prior arrhythmic events. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients with primary or secondary implant indications was used to evaluate intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) for the first spontaneous VT/VF resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. EGMs were categorized into VT, FVT, and PMVT/VF based on CL and morphologic criteria. Results: Of 616 implants, 145 patients (58 [40%] primary indications) received appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF over mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 3.2 years. Primary implants had more diabetes (28% vs 12%; P = 0.02) and less antiarrhythmic use (15% vs 33%; P = 0.02). In those patients with spontaneous arrhythmia, PMVT/VF occurred in 20.7% of primary versus 21.8% of secondary implants, FVT in 19.0% versus 21.8%, and VT in 60.3% versus 56.4%, respectively (P = 0.88). Spontaneous VT CL was similar regardless of implant indication (284 ± 56 [primary] vs 286 ± 67 ms [secondary]; P = 0.92). Conclusions: Monomorphic VT is the most common cause of appropriate ICD therapy regardless of implant indication. These results provide insight into the mechanisms of sudden cardiac death and have implications for the use of interventions designed to limit ICD shocks.

KW - Defibrillation-ICD

KW - Electrophysiology-clinical

KW - VT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957683003&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957683003&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.03004.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2010.03004.x

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 571

EP - 576

JO - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - PACE - Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 0147-8389

IS - 5

ER -