Aims Sudden cardiac death (SCD) annual incidence is 0.6–1% in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≥40%. No recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use exist in this population. Methods and results We introduced a combined non-invasive/invasive risk stratification approach in post-MI ischaemia-free patients, with LVEF ≥ 40%, in a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Patients with at least one positive electrocardiographic non-invasive risk factor (NIRF): premature ventricular complexes, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, late potentials, prolonged QTc, increased T-wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence, were referred for programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS), with ICDs offered to those inducible. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major arrhythmic event (MAE), namely sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, appropriate ICD activation or SCD. We screened and included 575 consecutive patients (mean age 57 years, LVEF 50.8%). Of them, 204 (35.5%) had at least one positive NIRF. Forty-one of 152 patients undergoing PVS (27–7.1% of total sample) were inducible. Thirty-seven (90.2%) of them received an ICD. Mean follow-up was 32 months and no SCDs were observed, while 9 ICDs (1.57% of total screened population) were appropriately activated. None patient without NIRFs or with NIRFs but negative PVS met the primary endpoint. The algorithm yielded the following: sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.8%, positive predictive value 22%, and negative predictive value 100%. Conclusion The two-step approach of the PRESERVE EF study detects a subpopulation of post-MI patients with preserved LVEF at risk for MAEs that can be effectively addressed with an ICD. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02124018
Signal‐averaged electrocardiography records delayed depolarization of myocardial areas with slow conduction that can form the substrate for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This technique has been examined mostly in patients with coronary artery disease, but its use has been declined over the years. However, several lines of evidence, derived from hitherto clinical data in patients with healed myocardial infarction, indicate that signal‐averaged electrocardiography remains a valuable tool in risk stratification, especially when incorporated into algorithms encompassing invasive and noninvasive indices. Such an approach can aid the more precise identification of candidates for device therapy, in the context of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This article reappraises the value of signal‐averaged electrocardiography as a predictor of arrhythmic outcome in patients with ischemic heart disease and discusses potential future indications.
Since the first transvenous pacemaker implantation, which took place 50 years ago, important progress has been achieved in pacing technology. Consequently, at present, more than 700,000 pacemakers are implanted annually worldwide. However, conventional pacemakers' implantation has a non-negligible risk of periprocedural and long-term complications associated with the transvenous leads and pacemaker pocket. Recently, leadless pacing systems have emerged as a therapeutic alternative to conventional pacing systems that provide therapy for patients with bradyarrhythmias, while eliminating potential transvenous lead- and pacemaker pocket-related complications. Initial studies have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety of currently developed leadless pacing systems, compared to transvenous pacemakers. In the present paper, we review the current evidence and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this novel technology. New technological advances may allow the next generation of leadless pacemakers to further expand, thereby offering a wireless cardiac pacing in future.
Background: Several noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) have been proposed for sudden cardiac death risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF). However, it remains unclear if these factors change over time. Methods: We evaluated seven electrocardiographic NIRFs as they were described in the PRESERVE-EF trial in 80 post-MI patients with EF ≥ 40%, at least 40 days after revascularization and 1 year later. Results: Mean patient age was 56 ± 10 years, and 88% were men. Mean EF was 50 ± 5%. The prevalence of (a) positive late potentials (27.5% vs. 28.8%, p = .860), (b) >30 premature ventricular complexes/hour (8.8% vs. 11.3%, p = .598), (c) nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (8.8% vs. 5%, p = .349), (d) standard deviation of normal RR intervals <75 ms (3.8% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000), (e) QTc derived from 24-hr electrocardiography >440 ms (men) or >450 ms (women) (17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 1.000), (f) deceleration capacity ≤4.5 ms and heart rate turbulence onset ≥0% and slope ≤2.5 ms (2.5% vs. 3.8%. p = 1.000), and (g) ambulatory T-wave alternans ≥65 μV in two Holter channels (6.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 1.000) were similar between the two measurements. However, five patients (6.3%) without any NIRFs during the first assessment had at least one positive NIRF at the second assessment and six patients (7.5%) with at least one NIRF at baseline had no positive NIRFs at 1 year. Conclusions: While the prevalence of the examined electrocardiographic NIRFs between the two examinations was similar on a population basis, some patients without NIRFs at baseline developed NIRFs at 1 year and vice versa, highlighting the need for risk factor reassessment during follow-up. How to cite this article: Xenogiannis I, Gatzoulis KA, Flevari P, et al. Temporal changes of noninvasive electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.