Guidelines for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Filling the Gap

Transcription

1 Guidelines for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Filling the Gap A. BARANCHUK, C. MORILLO Introduction Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a major public health challenge in both North America and Europe. Identifying high-risk patients is of paramount importance in order to correctly select the population that derives the greatest benefit from ICD implantation. Unfortunately, risk markers developed to date are not universally applied and have low sensitivity and predictive values, limiting their use. Financial restraints on health care systems vary widely among different countries, adding complexity to global recommendations. Cardiovascular disease is responsible for deaths annually in Canada, and SCD related to ventricular tachyarrhythmias causes 50% of this mortality [1]. In the United States the annual figures for SCD range between and [2]. In addition, around people live with chronic heart failure, with new cases added every year. Almost 10% will die annually of either progressive pump failure or SCD [3]. The global incidence of SCD is difficult to estimate in Europe, but the Maastricht study showed an annual incidence of out-of-hospital SCD of 1 in 1000 inhabitants, which is similar to that reported in North America [4]. Several guidelines and recommendations have been published by most of the leading cardiovascular societies [5]. However, it is important to recognise that SCD is a moving target, and in the past 3 years important clinical trials not included in current guidelines have been reported. A thorough review of SCD guidelines is out of the scope of this review. This chapter will focus on the most recently published and presented trials and will place this new information in the framework of current SCD guidelines. Department of Medicine, Arrhythmia Service, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

2 224 A. Baranchuk, C. Morillo Indications for ICD for Primary Prevention Several studies have assessed the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for the prevention of SCD in high-risk populations. These studies may be classified according to the underlying anatomical substrate: 1. Coronary artery disease + left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 30 35%: MADIT I, MADIT II, MUSTT, DINAMIT [6 9] 2. Non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy + depressed LVEF: CAT, AMIOVIRT, DEFINITE [10 12] 3. LVEF 35% + NYHA class II/III regardless of the aetiology of the cardiomyopathy SCD-HeFT [13, 14] Overall a 39% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality [31% in non ischaemic dilated cordiomyopathy (NICM)] is achieved in the setting of primary prevention of SCD [15, 16] Current guidelines should be updated as follows: 1. Class I: Ischaemic heart disease with or without mild to moderate heart failure symptoms and LVEF 30%, measured at least 1 month after myocardial infarction and 3 months after coronary revascularisation procedure [percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)] (level of evidence: A) 2. Class IIa: a) Patients with ischaemic heart disease and LV dysfunction (LVEF = 31 35%), measured at least 6 weeks after myocardial infarction and 3 months after coronary revascularisation procedure (PCI and/or CABG) with inducible ventricular fibrillation (VF)/sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) at electrophysiology study (level of evidence: B) b) Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy 9 months, LVEF 30%, and NYHA functional class II III heart failure (level of evidence: B) c) Patients with familial or inherited conditions such as but not limited to long QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome, or arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) and at a high risk for life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias (level of evidence: B) 3. Class IIb: a) Patients with ischaemic heart disease, prior myocardial infarction, LV dysfunction (LVEF = 31 35%), with either no inducible VF/sustained VT at electrophysiology study, or without an electrophysiology study (level of evidence: C) b) Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy present for at least 9 months, LV dysfunction (LVEF = 31 35%) and NYHA functional class II III heart failure (level of evidence: C)

3 Guidelines for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Filling the Gap 225 ICD Indications after an Acute Myocardial Infarction The first 6 12 months after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are a period of high risk for SCD. However, the benefit of ICDs in this setting has not been fully studied. The DINAMIT study was a randomised, open-label study that compared ICD therapy to no ICD therapy in 674 patients during the immediate period after an AMI (6 40 days). Inclusion criteria were: LVEF 35%, heart rate variability standard deviation of normal RR intervals (SDNN) 70 ms or a mean RR interval 750 ms (heart rate 80 bpm) by 24-h Holter monitoring. The primary outcome was total mortality. There was no difference in overall mortality between the two groups (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.55; P = 0.66; follow-up 30 ± 13 months). However, there was a reduction in arrhythmic deaths that was manifested by an increase in non-arrhythmic deaths in the ICD group [9]. Based on the DINAMIT study findings, the decision to implant an ICD should be delayed for at least 6 weeks and possibly more in patients with a recent myocardial infarction and reduced LV function. Reassessment of LV function is required in order to define the need for an ICD. Indications for ICD for Secondary Prevention There is conclusive evidence supporting the superiority of ICDs over drugs for the secondary prevention of SCD [17 19]. A meta-analysis of secondary prevention trials reported a 28% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality. This reduction was almost entirely due to a 50% relative risk reduction in arrhythmic deaths. Greater benefit is derived in patients with an LVEF < 35% [20]. Current guidelines support the use of ICDs in patients surviving a cardiac arrest or having presented with symptomatic sustained VT with reduced LV function regardless of aetiology. ICD Indications for Infrequent Clinical Conditions The less common cardiac disorders such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome, long QT, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia are difficult to include in general guidelines due to their low incidence. However, sudden death is relatively frequent and is a devastating clinical presentation that could affect young people, and ICDs are sometimes the only available alternative [21, 22] (Table 1). Risk stratification of diseases with low prevalence is challenging. However, some useful recommendations based on small non-randomised studies and expert opinions may be proposed. The diagnosis of Brugada syndrome [23] is based on typical 12-lead ECG

4 226 A. Baranchuk, C. Morillo Table 1. ICD recommendation for infrequent cardiac disorders Disease Primary prevention Secondary prevention Long QT Class I ARVD Class IIa Class I HCM Class IIa Class I Brugada Class I a Class I CPVT Class I ARVD, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; CPVT, catecholaminergic polymorphic VT a Patients with syncope and no documented VT findings (ST segment elevation in leads V1 V3) in subjects with either a family history of unexplained SCD or syncope or presenting with symptoms. The role of an electrophysiology study in determining the risk of death remains uncertain; however, ICD implantation is recommended in patients who survive an episode of VT/VF [24]. The evidence is in favour of including as high-risk patients those with a previous history of syncope and a familial history of SCD. SCD may frequently be the primary manifestation of the long QT syndrome. There are clinical indicators such as history of syncope, ECG characteristics, cardiac arrest and torsades de pointes, and genetic markers that may help identify subjects at higher risk. ICD is recommended for secondary prevention while primary prevention is based mostly in the treatment with beta-blockers and life-style changes [25]. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia may be a cause of SCD in the younger groups. Evidence identifying high-risk subgroups is sparse. Nonetheless, ICD is indicated in patients with VT/VF that are refractory to anti-arrhythmic agents. Patients with LV involvement or severe compromise of the right ventricle are at higher risk [26]. There is sparse evidence to provide definitive recommendations regarding the role of ICD in patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic VT. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to recommend an ICD for secondary prevention or after beta-blockers have failed [27]. The level of evidence for all of these disorders is C, and larger studies assessing the role of primary prevention and better means for risk stratification are certainly needed. Careful assessment of family history, searching for early unexplained deaths, seizures, and recurrent syncope, may aid individualising the decision to implant an ICD in a young subject.

5 Guidelines for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Filling the Gap 227 ICD or ICD and Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy A number of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) studies have demonstrated an improvement in quality of life, exercise tolerance, and NYHA class in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS. However, the benefits in relation to mortality have not been clearly established. The COMPANION study was designed to evaluate the role of the addition of ICD therapy to CRT. The primary outcome was a composite of total mortality and hospitalisations related to heart failure. COMPANION showed a significant reduction in the primary outcome for both CRT and CRT-ICD. However, mortality was significantly reduced only in the CRT-ICD arm, a 40% relative risk reduction [28, 29, 31]. This effect was significant regardless of the aetiology of heart failure. It still remains unclear whether the effect of CRT-ICD is due to a synergistic effect between the different therapies or if it is only caused by a reduction in arrhythmic deaths due to the presence of an ICD in high-risk patients. Ongoing studies are currently addressing this issue. Current evidence supports the use of CRT-ICD in patients who fulfill both criteria. This is a class IIa indication with level of evidence A. Health-Economic Considerations The economic implications of ICD implantation are unquestionable [31, 32]. The issue is rather how to scientifically and economically judiciously use the limited resources available. Further refining of risk-stratifying markers such as T wave alternans may aid in this decision. However, a prospective trial using a risk score may need to be developed. Compared to other medical therapies, ICDs may be economically sound. Figure 1 shows the calculated number needed to treat to save one life in the different ICD-CRT clinical trials. These should provide a general perspective on the potential economic justification of ICD therapy. It is important to recognise that clinical trials are limited by the fact that they do not take into account the relentless progression of the disease in patients with impaired LV function. Nevertheless, the benefit is clear, and physicians and health authorities should team up to create responsible policies that should be adapted to each country s resources.

6 228 A. Baranchuk, C. Morillo MUSTT 5yr MADIT 2.4yr MADITII 3yr SCD-HeFt 5yr COMPANION 1yr DEFI NITE 2.5yr Fig. 1. Number needed to treat to prevent one death (all cause mortality/arrhythmic mortality) Conclusions Evidence-based large clinical trials have undoubtedly demonstrated the benefits of ICD in specific populations. Guidelines are intended only as a tool to aid in the decision whether to implant an ICD or CRT device. The responsibility of physicians is primarily towards their patients, but judicious use of health care resources is critical to be able to provide a fair share to all the patients in need of these devices. References 1. Tang AS, Ross H, Simpson C et al (2005) Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society. Position paper on implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use in Canada. Can J Cardiol (in press) 2. Josephson M, Wellens HJJ (2004) Implantable defibrillators and sudden cardiac death. Circulation 109: American Heart Association (2001) 2002 Heart and stroke statistical update. American Heart Association, Dallas, Texas 4. Vreede-Swagemakers JJM, Gorgels APM, Dubois-Arbouw WI et al (1997) Out-ofhospital cardiac arrest in the 1900s: a population-based study in the Maastricht area on incidence, characteristics and survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 30: Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE et al (2002) ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices: summary article. Circulation 106: Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS et al (1996) Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. N Engl J Med 335:

7 Guidelines for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Filling the Gap Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ et al (2002) Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 346: Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD et al (1999) Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 341: Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P et al (2004) Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction. DINAMIT investigators. N Engl J Med 351: Bansch D, Antz M, Boczor S et al (2002) Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: the cardiomyopathy trial (CAT). Circulation 105: Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG et al (2003) Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia AMIOVIRT. J Am Coll Cardiol 41: Kadish A, Dyer A, Daubert JP et al (2004) Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 350: The sudden cardiac death in heart failure trial (SCD-HeFT): Klein H, Auricchio A, Reek S et al (1999) New primary prevention trials of sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: SCD-HeFT and MADIT- II. Am J Cardiol 83:91D 97D 15. Englestein ED (2003) Prevention and management of chronic heart failure with electrical therapy. AJC 91:62F 73F 16. Desai AS, Fang JC, Maisel WH et al (2004) Implantable defibrillators for the prevention of mortality in patients with nonischemic cadiomyopathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 292: Connolly SJ, Gent M, Robert RS et al (2000) Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS): a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. Circulation 101: Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J et al (2000) Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). Circulation 102: Anderson JL, Hallstrom AP, Epstein AE et al, for the AVID Investigators (1999) Design and results of the Antiarrhythmic Vs. Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry. Circulation 99: Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R et al (2000) Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmic vs. implantable defibrillator study. Eur Heart J 21: Priori SG, Aliot E, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C et al (2002) Task force on sudden death, European Society of Cardiology. Summary of recommendations. Europace 4: Priori SG, Aliot E, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C et al (2003) Update of the guidelines on sudden cardiac death of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 24: Brugada J, Brugada R, Brugada P (1998) Right bundle-branch block and ST-segment elevation in leads V1 through V3: a marker for sudden death in patients without demonstrable structural heart disease. Circulation 97: Priori SG, Napolitano C, Gasparini M et al (2000) Clinical and genetic heterogeneity of right bundle branch block and ST-segment elevation syndrome: a prospec-

8 230 A. Baranchuk, C. Morillo tive evaluation of 52 families. Circulation 102: Priori SG, Napolitano C, Bloise R et al (2003) Risk stratification in the long-qt syndrome. N Engl J Med 348: Link MS, Wang PJ, Haugh CJ et al (1997) Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia: clinical results with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 1: Leenhardt A, Lucet V, Denjoy I et al (1995) Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in children. A 7-year follow-up of 21 patients. Circulation 91: Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J et al (2004) Cardiac-resynchronisation therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 350: Morillo CA (2004) A prophylactic cardioverter-defibrillator prevented sudden death from arrhythmia in nonischemic cardiomyopathy. ACP J Club 141(3): Morillo CA (2004) Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced all-cause death and hospitalization in chronic heart failure. ACP J Club 141(3): Priori SG, Klein W (2003) Medical practice guidelines. Separating science from economics. Eur Heart J 24: Chen L, Hay JW (2004) Cost-effectiveness of primary implanted cardioverter defibrillator for sudden death prevention in congestive heart failure. Cardiovasc Drug Ther 18: