• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found

Noninvasive Predictors of Malignant Arrhythmias

Read this article at

      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


      Background: Prediction and potential prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to malignant ventricular arrhythmia (MVA) represent an obvious unmet medical need. We estimated the prognostic relevance of numerous biomarkers associated with future MVA development in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) over 2 years of follow-up. Methods: Patients with stable documented CAD (n = 97) with a mean age of 61 ± 10 years were prospectively enrolled in a single-center observational cohort study. Heart failure was diagnosed in 68% of the patients (NYHA class II-III). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 50 ± 13%, while 20% of patients had LVEF ≤35%. Sixty-two patients underwent myocardial revascularization during the follow-up (mean 25 ± 11 months). Clinical characteristics (age, gender, diabetes, history of coronary disease and arrhythmias, prior interventions and antecedent medications), noninvasive electrophysiological markers [microvolt T-wave alterations, signal-averaged electrocardiography, QT interval duration and alteration, and heart rate turbulence (HRT) and HR variability], laboratory indices [serum creatinine and creatinine clearance, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), NT-proBNP, and C-reactive protein and troponin T levels] were assessed with regard to the MVA prognosis. Results: MVA was diagnosed in 11 patients during the prospective follow-up. Prior percutaneous coronary intervention (p < 0.05), MVA or syncope (p < 0.05), on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting during follow-up (p < 0.01), LVEF ≤47% (p < 0.01), a left atrium size ≥4.7 cm (p < 0.05), left atrium index (p = 0.01), filtered QRS duration (p < 0.05), abnormal HRT (χ2 = 6.2, p = 0.01) or turbulence slope (χ2 = 9.5, p < 0.01), BNP ≥158 pg/ml (p < 0.01) and NT-proBNP ≥787 pg/ml (χ2 = 4.4, p < 0.05) were significantly associated with MVA risk by univariate analysis. However, only prior MVA or syncope [odds ratio (OR) 11.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-44.4; p < 0.01], abnormal HRT (ОR 13.6; 95% CI 2.8-66.1; p < 0.01) and plasma BNP (ОR 14.3; 95% CI 3.2-65.0; p < 0.01) remained independent predictors of MVA occurrence by multivariate Cox regression analysis. Conclusion: Prior syncope or MVA, HRT and elevated plasma BNP were independent MVA predictors, advocating for the prospective screening of high-risk CAD patients for potential SCD awareness.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 19

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.

      Patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. This randomized trial was designed to evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in such patients. Over the course of four years, we enrolled 1232 patients with a prior myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.30 or less. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive an implantable defibrillator (742 patients) or conventional medical therapy (490 patients). Invasive electrophysiological testing for risk stratification was not required. Death from any cause was the end point. The clinical characteristics at base line and the prevalence of medication use at the time of the last follow-up visit were similar in the two treatment groups. During an average follow-up of 20 months, the mortality rates were 19.8 percent in the conventional-therapy group and 14.2 percent in the defibrillator group. The hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause in the defibrillator group as compared with the conventional-therapy group was 0.69 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.93; P=0.016). The effect of defibrillator therapy on survival was similar in subgroup analyses stratified according to age, sex, ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, and the QRS interval. In patients with a prior myocardial infarction and advanced left ventricular dysfunction, prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator improves survival and should be considered as a recommended therapy.
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.

        Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shock-only, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Executive Summary: Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics--2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.


            Author and article information

            aBakoulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, Moscow, Russia; bHeartDrug™ Research Laboratories, Johns Hopkins University, Towson, Md., USA
            S. Karger AG (Basel, Switzerland karger@ )
            August 2016
            18 May 2016
            : 135
            : 1
            : 36-42
            Cardiology 2016;135:36-42
            © 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

            Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

            Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 25, Pages: 7
            Short Communication


            Comment on this article