Effect of coronary revascularization on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and recurrent ventricular arrhythmia

The impact of revascularization on recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients with coronary artery disease and relatively preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown.

Patients who undergo resuscitation from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias often have significant coronary artery disease, and revascularization has been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia and cardiac arrest episodes in this patient population. The magnitude of benefit attributed to revascularization has varied by study, and the use of adjunct implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has not been well-characterized. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry included 3117 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, of whom 2321 (77%) had documented coronary artery disease and 281 (17%) underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization procedure after the index event. Patients who underwent a revascularization procedure were younger, had a lower incidence rate of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmia, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, had less congestive heart failure, and were more likely to have had ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia. Patients who underwent revascularization had a better survival rate than did those who did not undergo such a procedure after the index event, and adjustment for differing baseline patient covariates did not alter the relative survival rate benefit. Further, ICD implantation offered a similar survival rate advantage to those patients in the AVID registry with coronary artery disease independent of revascularization. Coronary revascularization in the AVID registry patients with coronary artery disease effected a survival rate benefit that was not attributable to differences in baseline patient characteristics. The benefit of ICD on patient survival rate was not attenuated by a revascularization procedure.

Survivors of cardiac arrest due to ventricular arrhythmias are at risk for recurrent events. The role of revascularization in secondary prevention for survivors of cardiac arrest has been addressed in various studies with conflicting results. A total of 142 survivors of cardiac arrest with coronary artery disease were evaluated according to a standardized protocol, including 2-dimensional echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, coronary angiography, and electrophysiologic testing. Revascularization of scintigraphically documented ischemic myocardial regions was performed in 44 patients (31%). Final therapy was based on the results of electrophysiologic testing. Four-year survival rates were 100% for revascularized noninducible patients, 84% for revascularized inducible patients, 91% for nonrevascularized noninducible patients, and 72% for nonrevascularized inducible patients. Only 1 patient (<1% of study population) died suddenly. Recurrences were much more frequent in patients without revascularization (38% vs 7%, p <0.001) and the recurrence rate was 0% in the revascularized noninducible patients. Thus, revascularization of ischemically jeopardized myocardium in survivors of cardiac arrest resulted in excellent survival; moreover, in absence of inducible ventricular arrhythmias, the recurrence rate was 0%. Systematic evaluation of survivors of cardiac arrest due to ventricular arrhythmias allows risk stratification and guidance of subsequent antiarrhythmic therapy.