Among patients with heart failure with indications for CRT, those with DCM may not benefit from additional primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, as opposed to those with ICM.

There was no statistically significant difference in freedom from AF between a minimal and maximal ablation strategy. Despite attempts to achieve PVI with antral ablation, IVR ablation is commonly required. Patients in whom antral isolation can be achieved without IVR ablation have higher long-term freedom from AF (the Minimax study; ACTRN12610000863033).

Objective Studies have shown beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) on mortality among patients with heart failure. However the incremental benefits in survival from CRT with a defibrillator (CRT-D) are unclear. The choice of appropriate device remains unanswered. Method This is a single-centre observational study in a tertiary cardiac centre. Patients (n=500) implanted with a CRT device with pacing alone (CRT-P) (n=354) and CRT-D (n=146) were followed for at least 2 years (mean 29 months, SD 14 months). The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Results A total of 116 deaths (23.2%) were recorded: 88 (24.8%) and 28 (19.2%), in the CRT-P and CRT-D groups, respectively. At 1 year there was a trend favouring CRT-D (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07, p=0.08) but this was attenuated by the 2nd year and became insignificant at the end of follow-up (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.170, p=0.21). There was no survival benefit from having an internal cardioverter-defibrillator if patients were deemed non-responders to CRT. 27% of the CRT-P patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy met indications for potential internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. These were older patients with poorer baseline function in comparison with CRT-D patients with devices for primary prevention. Once these differences were adjusted for, there was no difference in outcome between the groups. Conclusions CRT-D did not offer additional survival advantage over CRT-P at longer-term follow-up, as the clinical benefit of a defibrillator attenuated with time.

No abstract

A simple risk stratification score comprising five clinical risk factors may help identify CRT patients who are more likely to benefit from the presence of the defibrillator.

In primary prevention patients with CRT indication, the addition of a defibrillator might convey additional benefit only in well-selected male patients.

In the era of widespread use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for both primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a significant proportion of patients experience episodes of multiple ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation over a short period of time requiring device interventions. The episodes are termed ventricular arrhythmia (VA) or electrical storms. VA storm is a tragic experience for patients, with many psychological consequences. Current management for VA storms remains complex. Acutely, administration of β-blockers, amiodarone and sedation or intubation is generally required to suppress sympathetic tone. Interventional treatment includes catheter ablation and sympathetic blockade by left cardiac sympathetic denervation. Strategies to modify autonomic tone to suppress VAs are the rationale of various novel interventions that have been published in recent studies. All patients with VA storm should be considered for transfer to an experienced high-volume tertiary centre for evaluation and treatment to prevent further recurrence of VA storm.

There was a comparable and significant improvement in QoL post-ablation in patients who underwent ablation using PVAC catheter and conventional techniques.