Value of programmed ventricular stimulation for prophylactic internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in postinfarction patients preselected by noninvasive risk stratifiers

Citation
C. Schmitt et al., Value of programmed ventricular stimulation for prophylactic internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in postinfarction patients preselected by noninvasive risk stratifiers, J AM COL C, 37(7), 2001, pp. 1901-1907
Citations number
38
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Journal title
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
ISSN journal
07351097 → ACNP
Volume
37
Issue
7
Year of publication
2001
Pages
1901 - 1907
Database
ISI
SICI code
0735-1097(20010601)37:7<1901:VOPVSF>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the role of pr ogrammed ventricular stimulation (PVS) after noninvasive risk stratificatio n to identify a subgroup of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) survivors con sidered at risk for ventricular arrhythmias and whether these patients coul d benefit from internal cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). BACKGROUND The predictive value of noninvasive and invasive risk stratifier s after AMI has been questioned. The question of whether the group of patie nts with inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) after AMI could profit from ICD implantation is unanswered. METHODS A consecutive series of 1,436 AMI survivors was screened noninvasiv ely by Holter monitoring, heart rate variability, ventricular late potentia ls, and ejection fraction. A subgroup of 248 patients (17.3%) were identifi ed as high-risk patients and scheduled for PVS. Due to the study design, 54 patients >75 years were excluded; thus, 194 patients were eligible for PVS . Triple extrastimuli at two paced cycle lengths (600 ms and 400 ms) were a pplied. RESULTS In a subgroup of 98 (51%) high-risk patients, PVS was performed; 21 patients had an abnormal response, and in 20 patients an ICD was implanted . During a mean follow-up of 607 days the arrhythmic event rate (sudden car diac death, symptomatic VT, cardiac arrest) was 33% with a positive electro physiological test versus 2.6% (p < 0.0001) with a negative electrophysiolo gical test. A subgroup of 96 high-risk patients declined electrophysiologic al study. In this nonconsent group, cardiac mortality (combined sudden and nonsudden) was significantly higher (log-rank chi-square 9.38, p = 0.0022, relative risk 4.7, 1.6 to 13.9) compared to the group guided by electrophys iological testing and consecutive ICD implantation. CONCLUSIONS After a two-step risk stratification, PVS is helpful in selecti ng a subgroup of AMI survivors without spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias who benefit from prophylactic ICD implantation. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37: 1901-7) (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.