Chapter 22 Post-Infarction Sustained Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia
Pathophysiology
Classification of Ventricular Tachycardia
Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is defined as a tachycardia (rate >100 beats/min) with three or more consecutive beats that originates below the bifurcation of the His bundle (HB), in the specialized conduction system, the ventricular muscle, or in a combination of both tissues, independent of atrial or atrioventricular nodal (AVN) conduction.1,2
Classification According to Tachycardia Morphology
Monomorphic VT has a single stable QRS morphology from beat to beat, indicating repetitive ventricular depolarization in the same sequence (Fig. 22-1). Multiple monomorphic VTs refers to more than one morphologically distinct monomorphic VT, occurring as different episodes or induced at different times. Polymorphic VT has a continuously changing or multiform QRS morphology (i.e., no constant morphology for more than five complexes, no clear isoelectric baseline between QRS complexes, or QRS complexes that have different morphologies in multiple simultaneously recorded leads), indicating a variable sequence of ventricular activation and no single site of origin (see Fig. 22-1).3 Torsades de pointes is a polymorphic VT associated with a long QT interval, and is electrocardiographically characterized by twisting of the peaks of the QRS complexes around the isoelectric line during the arrhythmia. Pleomorphic VT has more than one morphologically distinct QRS complex occurring during the same episode of VT, but the QRS morphology is not continuously changing. Bidirectional VT is associated with a beat-to-beat alternans in the QRS frontal plane axis, often associated with digitalis toxicity or catecholaminergic VT. Ventricular flutter is a term that has been applied to a rapid (250 to 350 beats/min) VT that has a sinusoidal QRS configuration that prevents identification of the QRS morphology (see Fig. 22-1). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is a rapid (usually >350 beats/min), grossly irregular ventricular rhythm with marked variability in QRS amplitude and cycle length (CL), and a changing morphology (see Fig. 22-1).1,2
Classification According to Tachycardia Duration
Sustained VT lasts for more than 30 seconds or requires termination (e.g., cardioversion) in less than 30 seconds because of hemodynamic compromise, whereas nonsustained VT is a tachycardia at more than 100 beats/min lasting for three or more complexes but for less than 30 seconds.3 However, during electrophysiological (EP) testing, nonsustained VT is defined as more than five or six complexes of non–bundle branch reentrant (BBR) VT, regardless of morphology. BBR complexes are frequent (50%) in normal individuals in response to a ventricular extrastimulation (VES) and have no relevance to clinical nonsustained VT. Repetitive polymorphic responses are also common (up to 50%), especially in response to multiple (three or more) VESs with very short coupling intervals (less than 180 milliseconds). The clinical significance of induced polymorphic nonsustained VT is questionable.3 Incessant VT is a continuous sustained VT that recurs promptly over several hours despite repeated interventions (e.g., electrical cardioversion) for termination.4 Less commonly, incessant VT manifests as repeated bursts of VT that spontaneously terminate for a few intervening sinus beats, followed by the next tachycardia burst. The latter form is more common with the idiopathic VTs (see Fig. 23-1).1,2
Classification According to QRS Morphology in V1
VT with a left bundle branch block (LBBB)-like pattern has a predominantly negative QRS polarity in lead V1 (QS, rS, qrS), whereas VT with a right bundle branch block (RBBB)-like pattern has a predominantly positive QRS polarity in lead V1 (rsR′, qR, RR, R, RS). However, the VT may not show features characteristic of the same bundle branch block (BBB)-like morphology in other leads.1,3
Classification According to Tachycardia Mechanism
Focal VT has a point source of earliest ventricular activation with a centrifugal spread of activation from that site. The mechanism can be automaticity, triggered activity, or microreentry. Scar-related reentrant VT describes arrhythmias that have characteristics of reentry and originate from an area of myocardial scar identified from electrogram characteristics or myocardial imaging. Large reentry circuits that can be defined over several centimeters are commonly referred to as “macroreentry” circuits.1,2
Mechanism of Post-Infarction Ventricular Tachycardia
The majority of sustained monomorphic VTs (SMVTs) are caused by reentry involving a region of ventricular scar. The scar is most commonly caused by an old myocardial infarction (MI), but right ventricular (RV) dysplasia, sarcoidosis, Chagas disease, other nonischemic cardiomyopathies, surgical ventricular incisions for repair of tetralogy of Fallot, other congenital heart diseases, or ventricular volume reduction surgery (Batista procedure) can also cause scar-related reentry. Dense fibrotic scar creates areas of anatomical conduction block, and fibrosis between surviving myocyte bundles decreases cell-cell coupling and distorts the path of propagation, causing areas of slow conduction and block, which promotes reentry. In post-MI VT, a variety of different circuit configurations are possible. Generally, the reentrant circuit arises in areas of fibrosis interspersed with bundles of viable myocytes, producing a zigzag course of activation of and transverse conduction along a pathway lengthened by branching and merging bundles of surviving myocytes, leading to inhomogeneous anisotropy (see Fig. 3-18). Heterogeneity in tissue composition and autonomic innervations in these regions may create areas of aberrant conduction that generate the substrate for reentrant arrhythmias. Buried in the arrhythmogenic area is the common central pathway, the critical isthmus, causing slowing of impulse conduction, allowing reentry to occur. The isthmus itself can be surrounded by dead ends or branches that do not participate in the common pathway of the main reentrant circuit (bystander).4,5
Although previous data suggested that most isthmuses are anatomically determined by heterogeneous scar geometry, a recent study found that the diastolic pathway critical to post-MI VT reentrant circuits is typically protected by a boundary of fixed and functional block. In the majority of cases, development of functional unidirectional block was a prerequisite for initiation of VT, by protecting a region of myocardium that subsequently forms at least one border of the diastolic pathway. Evidence indicates that formation of functional block leading to reentry is associated with large dispersion in refractory periods over short anatomical distances.6
The critical isthmus contained in these reentry circuits often is a narrow path of tissue with abnormal conduction properties. Depolarization of the small mass of tissue in the isthmus is usually not detectable on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) and constitutes the electrical diastole between QRS complexes during VT. The wavefront leaves the isthmus at the exit site and propagates out to depolarize the remainder of the ventricles, producing the QRS complex. After leaving the exit of the isthmus, the reentrant wavefront can return back to the entrance of the isthmus through an outer loop or an inner loop (see Fig. 5-14).4 An outer loop is a broad sheet of myocardium along the border of the infarct. Depolarization of the outer loop can be detectable on the surface ECG. Reentrant circuits can have one or more outer loops. An inner loop is contained within the scar. Inner loop pathways can serve as potential components of a new reentrant circuit should the central common pathway be ablated. If multiple loops exist, the loop with the shortest conduction time generally determines the VT CL and is therefore the dominant loop. Any loop with a longer conduction time behaves as a bystander. Those bystander loops can serve as a potential component of a new reentrant circuit if the dominant loop is ablated.
The critical isthmus in post-MI VT is typically bounded by two approximately parallel conduction barriers that consist of a line of double potentials, a scar area, or the mitral annulus. The endocardial reentrant VT rotates around the isthmus boundaries and propagates slowly through the critical isthmus, which harbors diastolic potentials and measures, on average, approximately 30 mm long by 16 mm wide. The axis of a critical isthmus is typically oriented parallel to the mitral annulus plane in perimitral circuits and perpendicular to the mitral annulus plane in other circuits.4 Ablation lesions produced with standard radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheters are usually less than 8 mm in diameter, relatively small in relation to the entire reentry circuit, and can be smaller than the width of the reentry path at different points in the circuit. Successful ablation of a large circuit is achieved by targeting an isthmus where the circuit can be interrupted with one or a small number of RF lesions, or by creating a line of RF lesions through a region containing the reentry circuit.
A recent study using electroanatomical substrate mapping found that patients without clinical SMVT had markedly smaller endocardial low-voltage areas, fewer scar-related electrograms (i.e., fractionated, isolated, and very late potentials, which represent electrically viable sites within the scar), and fewer putative conducting channels compared with similar ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with spontaneous SMVT, despite equally severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as well as similar infarct age and distribution. These differences in the endocardial EP substrate can play an important role in VT arrhythmogenesis in the chronic post-MI context. Both the extent of the scar areas (electrogram voltage <0.5 mV) and the presence of numerous channels within this zone seem to be critical to the development of VT. Although the border zone region of the scar (electrogram voltage, 0.5 to 1.5 mV) did not differ in area between the two groups, this zone also had a significantly higher prevalence of putative conducting channels in the SMVT patients. This suggests a fundamentally different scar composition (more “arrhythmogenic”) in the SMVT patients. As noted, inhomogeneous scarring with varying degrees of subendocardial myocardial fiber preservation within dense zones of fibrosis leads to slowed conduction, nonuniform anisotropy, and the potential for channels within the scar zone—conditions necessary for the development of reentry.7
A focal mechanism of VT (abnormal automaticity or triggered activity) has been implicated in the settings of acute ischemia. Focal VT may also occur in the absence of an acute ischemic event in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease. A recent study found that a focal mechanism was present in up to 9% of VTs that were induced in patients with ischemic heart disease during EP study for RF ablation.8
Clinical Considerations
Epidemiology
Coronary heart disease is the most frequent cause of clinically documented VT and VF (76% to 82% of patients). The incidence of SMVT in patients with an acute MI varies with the type of MI. Among almost 41,000 patients with an ST elevation (Q wave) MI treated with thrombolysis in the GUSTO-1 trial, 3.5% developed VT alone and 2.7% developed both VT and VF. A pooled analysis of four major trials of almost 25,000 patients with a non–ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (non–ST elevation MI and unstable angina) noted a lower incidence of VT—0.8% developed VT alone and 0.3% developed both VT and VF.1,9
SMVT within the first 2 days of acute MI is uncommon, occurring in up to 3% of patients as a primary arrhythmia and with VF in up to 2%, and is associated with an increase in in-hospital mortality compared with those without this arrhythmia. However, among 21- to 30-day survivors, mortality at 1 year is not increased, suggesting that the arrhythmogenic mechanisms can be transient in early post-MI SMVT. On the other hand, the typical patient with SMVT occurring during the subacute and healing phases, beginning more than 48 hours after an acute MI, has had a large, often complicated infarct with a reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and such VT is a predictor of a worse prognosis.9 SMVT within 3 months of an MI is associated with a 2-year mortality rate of 40% to 50%, with most deaths being sudden. Predictors of increased mortality in these patients are anterior wall MI; frequent episodes of sustained VT, nonsustained VT, or both; heart failure; and multivessel coronary disease, particularly in individuals with residual ischemia.
Early reperfusion of infarct-related arteries results in less aneurysm formation, smaller scars, and less extensive EP abnormalities, although a significant risk of late VT (often with rapid CLs) persists.2,10 In patients with ST elevation MI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, delayed reperfusion (>5 hours after MI) was associated with a sixfold increase in the odds of inducible SMVT by programmed electrical stimulation (performed 6 to 10 days post-MI) as well as an increased risk of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD (after a mean follow-up of 28 ± 13 months) compared with early reperfusion (≤3 hours) independent of LVEF. It was estimated that each 1-hour delay in reperfusion conferred a 10.4% increase in the odds of inducible VT.11
Recent evidence suggests that coronary revascularization before or shortly after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in high-risk post-MI patients with LV dysfunction and wide QRS duration can potentially reduce the risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and appropriate ICD shocks, and, hence, improve quality of life and reduce mortality.12
SCD accounts for up to 15% of total mortality in industrialized countries and claims the lives of more than 300,000 people per year in the United States. Approximately 50% of deaths in patients with prior MI occur suddenly and unexpectedly. Ventricular arrhythmias are responsible for most of these deaths in stable ambulatory populations. Most SCD victims have known heart disease—most frequently coronary artery disease or prior MI. Cardiac arrest is the initial manifestation of heart disease in approximately 50% of cases. Such patients are more likely to have single-vessel coronary disease and normal or mildly abnormal LV systolic function than cardiac arrest victims with prior MI. Although heart failure increases risk for both sudden and nonsudden death, a history of heart failure is present in only approximately 10% of arrest victims.13
The risk for total and arrhythmic mortality is highest in the first month after an acute MI and stays high during the first 6 months after acute MI. After the first year post-MI, there appears to be a relatively quiescent period of relatively low rates of SCD, followed by a second peak 4 to 10 years after acute MI. The later occurrence of SCD may result from delayed ventricular remodeling resulting in the creation or activation of reentrant VT circuits on the infarct border as well as from heart failure developing late after MI.14
Several studies in patients with cardiac arrest have shown that VF as the causative rhythm appears to be decreasing, being replaced by pulseless electrical activity and asystole. Although the cause of this change is unknown, it may reflect patients with sicker hearts who are living longer due to better therapy. Hearts with advanced disease may be more likely to develop pulseless electrical activity and asystole than VF.15
Initial Evaluation
Evaluation of Type and Burden of Ventricular Arrhythmias
Identifying and quantifying the types and burden of sustained and nonsustained VT are necessary. Ideally, a 12-lead ECG should be obtained. In patients with ICDs, stored device data such as electrogram morphology and CL can be used to identify the clinical VT.2
Evaluation of Myocardial Ischemia
Although recurrent SMVT is rarely due to acute myocardial ischemia in patients with known coronary artery disease, diagnostic evaluation for acute or persistent ischemia is warranted to improve patient outcome, especially if the severity of coronary artery disease has not been previously established or prior episodes of VT caused hemodynamic compromise. This may include echocardiographic examination, exercise testing, and cardiac catheterization. In patients with reversible myocardial ischemia, coronary revascularization may be warranted, and can potentially reduce the risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.12 However, if the severity of coronary disease has been recently defined and symptoms and hemodynamic tolerance of VT do not suggest significant ischemia, further evaluation may not be required.1,2
PreAblation Evaluation
Patients with post-MI VT should be evaluated for comorbidities that can alter the approach to mapping and ablation. Treatment of congestive heart failure and myocardial ischemia should be optimized. Coronary revascularization should be considered in patients with reversible ischemia, because substantial ischemic burden can often be aggravated by the potential induction of prolonged periods of tachycardia or hemodynamically unstable arrhythmias during the ablation procedure. In patients with frequent or incessant VT, however, catheter ablation may be required on an urgent basis before the assessment for coronary artery disease in order to gain prompt control of the ventricular arrhythmia.1,2
In patients with suspected peripheral vascular disease, evaluation of the presence of severe arterial disease is warranted, as it can affect the approach to LV access (atrial transseptal versus retrograde transaortic versus epicardial).16 Similarly, an atrial transseptal approach allowing access to the LV through the mitral valve can be considered in the presence of a mechanical aortic valve or severe aortic valve disease.2
Assessment of the risks for sedation and anesthesia must be performed prior to the procedure, because these patients are likely to require deep sedation or general anesthesia.2
Arrhythmogenic Substrate Imaging
Echocardiography
Transthoracic echocardiography is routinely performed to evaluate LV systolic function, LVEF, and wall motion abnormalities that may contain the potential VT substrate. Transthoracic echocardiography also serves as a reliable tool to rule out ventricular thrombi before LV procedures. Additionally, it helps to identify relatively infrequent cardiomyopathies associated with VT, for example, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia-cardiomyopathy and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Although echocardiography can provide anatomical and contractile parameters, it cannot provide relevant clinical information about transmural extent and intramyocardial location of the scar.17
Delayed Contrast-Enhanced Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
Cardiac MR is extremely valuable for assessing viable and nonviable myocardium in infarcted and poorly contracting myocardial areas, and enables the depiction of transmural and nontransmural infarctions with high spatial resolution and better accuracy than scintigraphic techniques. Assessing the characteristics and distribution of myocardial scar by cardiac MR can potentially help identify patients at high risk of VT. In patients with ischemic CMP, the nontransmural hyperenhanced areas, but not the transmural hyperenhanced areas, were found to predict higher risk of sustained VT.18
Cardiac Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography
Cardiac contrast-enhanced CT scanning enables a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of LV myocardium using multimodality imaging based on anatomical, dynamic, and perfusion parameters to identify abnormal substrate (myocardial scar and border zone) with high spatial (≤1 mm) and temporal resolution, which can be derived from a single CT scan. Areas of CT hypoperfusion correlate best with areas of abnormal voltage (<1.5 mV) rather than scar alone (<0.5 mV). Perfusion imaging from CT can indicate scar transmurality and intramyocardial scar location.17
The ability of contrast-enhanced CT to characterize the transmural extent and intramyocardial location of scar tissue and to visualize surviving mid- and epicardial myocardium at sites of endocardial scar can potentially help identify areas involved in myocardial reentry representing appropriate ablation targets and help to overcome one of the significant limitations of endocardial voltage mapping. Additionally, the presence of an epicardial VT substrate can facilitate planning of VT ablations, such as for a combined endocardial and epicardial approach.17 When compared with contrast-enhanced MR, absolute sizes of early hypoperfused and late hyperenhanced regions were similar on contrast-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced MR.17
The three-dimensional (3-D) CT-defined image of abnormal myocardium can be accurately extracted and embedded in clinical mapping systems displaying areas of abnormal anatomical, dynamic, and perfusion parameters for substrate-guided VT ablations.17
Role of Electrophysiological Testing
In patients with sustained monomorphic VT, EP testing is not recommended unless catheter ablation is planned. However, EP testing is useful in patients with coronary heart disease for the diagnostic evaluation of wide QRS complex tachycardias of unclear mechanism and in those with unexplained syncope. Additionally, EP testing can be used for risk stratification late after MI in patients with ischemic CMP and nonsustained VT (see below).19
Programmed stimulation induces VT in over 90% of patients with a history of VT. Although the rate and QRS morphology of induced VT may differ from that observed during spontaneous tachycardia, the induction of VT signifies the presence of a fixed anatomical substrate associated with an increased likelihood of future spontaneous events.2
Risk Stratification
There are more than 50 million North American adults with coronary artery disease and more than 7 million have had an MI. However, only a fraction of these patients will suffer a cardiac arrest. Therefore, noninvasive risk assessment after MI is required to identify patients at risk of SCD. Various tests assessing the extent of myocardial damage and scarring, myocardial conduction disorders, dispersion of repolarization, and autonomic imbalance have been proposed to identify patients at high risk of SCD who are likely to benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy. Some of these techniques potentially identify the underlying substrate (e.g., myocardial scar, intramyocardial conduction abnormalities) or triggers (e.g., autonomic imbalance, nonsustained VT) of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. However, most of these techniques have not been validated in independent populations and, although they can predict higher risk of total mortality, their ability to predict arrhythmic death is uncertain. Additionally, the majority of conventional risk stratifiers of SCD have a relatively low positive predictive value that would preclude their wide application as guidelines for ICD implantation in patients known to be at risk for SCD.14,20
To date, only two approaches have been proven useful in guiding prophylactic ICD therapy in post-MI patients: the presence of significant LV dysfunction alone or in combination with the inducibility of sustained VT/VF during programmed electrical stimulation beyond the early phase after MI. It should be recognized, however, that the development of SCD in post-MI patients is multifactorial, and multiple events need to coincide for a cardiac arrest to ensue; therefore, no one risk stratification test alone will be sufficient for all patients. Rather, combining multiple tests screening for the different potential mechanisms of SCD may be necessary. Furthermore, because progression of ischemic heart disease can result in the evolution of new mechanisms of SCD in individual patients, repetition of risk stratification tests at certain intervals may be required. It would seem reasonable (in the absence of data) to retest every 2 years in apparently stable patients to detect potential changes in substrate, regardless of which tests appear to have the highest yield.14,20
LEFT VENTRICULAR Ejection Fraction
Multiple studies evaluating survival of patients with prior MI established a clear relationship between reduced LVEF and increased mortality. LVEF behaves as a continuous variable, with gradually increasing mortality risk until the LVEF declines to 40% and then markedly increasing risk for values less than 40%. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms involved in the strong correlation between decreased LV systolic function and increased incidence of SCD are not clearly defined.14
Although low LVEF identifies one patient population at relatively increased risk for SCD, there are clear limitations to LVEF as the ideal risk-stratification test for deciding whether to implant an ICD for primary prevention of SCD. LV systolic dysfunction lacks specificity. There is no evidence of any direct mechanistic link between low LVEF and mechanisms responsible for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and no study has demonstrated that reduced LVEF is specifically related to SCD. In fact, in studies that enrolled all patients after MI, patients with LVEF less than 30% to 35% account for no more than 50% of sudden cardiac arrest victims. Thus, although LVEF is a good marker of risk for total mortality, it does not provide insight into how patients are likely to die (sudden versus nonsudden).
Invasive Electrophysiological Testing
Inducibility of VT/VF during invasive EP testing can enhance the predictive accuracy of reduced LVEF for post-MI patients with high mortality risk. The first Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT I) study demonstrated that those patients with inducible VT/VF and LVEF values less than or equal to 35% late after MI are likely to benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy. Moreover, the absolute mortality reduction in MADIT I (26.2% over 27 months) was substantially greater than what was found in either the second MADIT (MADIT II) or SCD Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Similar results were found in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT).19,21
However, secondary analysis from MUSTT revealed that despite the significant difference in outcome between inducible patients enrolled in the trial and noninducible patients enrolled in a registry, EP inducibility was of limited value because the 5-year mortality rate in inducible patients was 48% compared with 44% in noninducible patients. Later, data from MADIT II showed that there is no need for additional risk stratifiers (including EP testing) when LVEF is so low. In more than 80% of patients randomized to the ICD arm of MADIT II, invasive EP testing with an attempt to induce tachyarrhythmias was performed at the time of ICD placement. VT inducibility, observed in 40% of studied patients, was not effective in identifying patients with cardiac events defined as VT, VF, or death. These observations from both MUSTT and MADIT II subanalyses suggest that in patients with substantially depressed LV function, EP inducibility should not be considered a useful predictor of outcome. It is possible, however, that inducibility might have much better predictive value in post-MI patients with LVEF greater than 30% or greater than 35%.19,21
Furthermore, using inducible VT/VF to guide prophylactic ICD therapy is limited by low sensitivity. Patients with LVEF values not exceeding 35% after MI and no inducible VT/VF still appear to have a substantial (>25%) risk of serious events over the near term.21
There are also no data to support the use of invasive EP testing in post-MI patients with LVEF values more than 40% or in the early post-MI period. In fact, the Beta-blocker Strategy plus Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (BEST-ICD) trial found that inducible VT/VF early after MI does not predict benefit from ICD therapy. In contrast, the Cardiac Arrhythmias and Risk Stratification after Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARISMA) study found that inducible VT identified 6 weeks following an acute MI was a strong predictor of future life-threatening arrhythmias.19,21
Additionally, EP testing is invasive and not practical for broad application as a screening tool. Nonetheless, it can be valuable when used in patients in whom the risk of sustained arrhythmias and SCD is intermediate, and the potential benefit of ICD therapy uncertain. Current guidelines recommend prophylactic ICD therapy in post-MI patients with nonsustained VT and LVEF less than 40% if sustained VT/VF is inducible at EP study.14
Measures of Autonomic Imbalance
Methods to assess the autonomic nervous system, which has been thought to be a modulator between triggers of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and the underlying substrate, including heart rate variability, baroreflex sensitivity, heart rate turbulence, and deceleration capacity, have been evaluated for risk stratification of SCD. Multiple studies have correlated relative excess of sympathetic tone (or deficient parasympathetic tone) with increased mortality in post-MI patients as well as increased propensity for VF during acute ischemia. However, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in relative risk for SCD versus total mortality. Thus, these measures do not appear to provide a reliable measure of SCD risk and there is no evidence to support their use in guiding prophylactic ICD therapy.22
Measures of Myocardial Conduction Disorders
Increased QRS duration on a surface ECG has been associated with a higher risk of death after MI and appears to reflect greater LV dysfunction, but association with SCD has not been proven. Similarly, the presence of late potentials on signal-averaged ECG failed to identify patients likely to benefit from ICD therapy.22 Recently, fragmentation of the QRS complex on the 12-lead surface ECG (filter range, 0.15 to 100 Hz; AC filter, 60 Hz, 25 mm/sec, 10 mm/mV), which likely signifies inhomogeneous ventricular activation due to myocardial scar, ischemia, or both in patients with coronary artery disease, has been found to potentially predict increased risk of appropriate ICD therapies in patients who received an ICD for primary and secondary prevention. The usefulness of this parameter needs further evaluation.23,24
Genetic Testing
There is compelling evidence that a genetic mechanism may increase patient susceptibility to SCD following MI, and genetic assessment may play a role in the future. However, there is presently no evidence for using genetic testing to identify post-MI patients at risk.14,20
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Characteristics of myocardial scar architecture and tissue heterogeneity in the periinfarct zone, as defined by contrast-enhanced cardiac MR, can potentially identify a proarrhythmic substrate and appears to be a strong predictor of ventricular arrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies. In patients with ischemic CMP, the nontransmural, but not the transmural, hyperenhanced areas were found to predict higher risk of sustained VT.18 However, large prospective trials are still required to evaluate the reliability of these techniques for risk stratification.25
Risk Stratification Early Post-Infarction
The risk of SCD is greatest in the first month after MI and appears to decline in the first year after MI. Nevertheless, both prospective and retrospective studies of prophylactic ICD therapy have failed to show a reduction in all-cause mortality in early post-MI patients. The reduction in the rate of death due to arrhythmia associated with ICD therapy was offset by an increase in the rate of death from nonarrhythmic cardiac causes in the ICD groups. This discrepancy not only highlights the limitations of current risk stratification techniques, but also reflects relative differences in the risk factors for SCD at different time points after MI and the fact that nonarrhythmic death accounts for an appreciable percentage of deaths during that time. Heart rate and creatinine clearance measured at baseline are strongly associated with SCD during the in-hospital period, whereas recurrent cardiovascular events (including heart failure, MI, and rehospitalization) and a baseline LVEF of 40% or less are more strongly associated with the occurrence of SCD after discharge.21,26
Whereas the cumulative incidence of SCD is greatest in post-MI patients with an LVEF of 30% or less, the incidence of SCD is greater in patients with an LVEF greater than 40% in the first 30 days after MI when compared with patients with an LVEF of 30% or less after 90 days. The strength of the association between LVEF and survival free from SCD appears to be greatest in long-term follow-up (>6 months). Currently, there is no strategy (invasive or noninvasive) that can reliably predict the risk for SCD or guide empiric ICD implantation soon after an MI. Data suggest it is best to wait 2 to 3 months after acute MI before performing risk stratification.14,21,26
Recent data suggest a potential benefit of EP testing in risk stratification in patients with ST elevation MI and LVEF less than 40% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Inducible SMVT by programmed electrical stimulation performed 6 to 10 days post-MI was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous VT/VF and SCD (after a mean follow-up of 28 ± 13 months). However, further evaluation in randomized clinical trials is required before adoption of this approach.11
Principles of Management
Pharmacological Therapy
Acute Therapy
The degree of hemodynamic tolerance should dictate the initial therapeutic strategy. VTs causing severe symptoms of angina or hemodynamic collapse almost always respond to synchronized electrical cardioversion. Treatment of pulseless VT is the same as that for VF and should follow the ACLS protocol. In patients with difficult-to-control or recurrent VT, intravenous amiodarone is the drug of choice. Intravenous procainamide and sotalol are alternatives. Lidocaine is less effective in the absence of acute ischemia; however, it can be considered in combination with either procainamide or amiodarone if the latter drugs are ineffective alone. Beta blockers offer additional benefit in patients with ischemic heart disease. Treatment of underlying conditions (e.g., acute ischemia, decompensated heart failure, electrolyte abnormalities) is also necessary.19 For refractory VT storm, general anesthesia, sympathetic neural blockade, catheter ablation, and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation have been used.
Chronic Therapy
Antiarrhythmic drugs can be considered in two main settings: as adjunctive therapy in patients with an ICD and as preventive therapy in patients who do not want or are not candidates for an ICD (e.g., because of marked comorbidities). Because an ICD does not prevent arrhythmias, patients who have frequent symptoms or device discharges triggered by VT/VF may benefit from adjunctive drug therapy. There are three main indications for antiarrhythmic drug therapy along with an ICD: to reduce the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with unacceptably frequent ICD therapies, to reduce the rate of VT so that it is better tolerated hemodynamically and more amenable to pace termination or low-energy cardioversion, and to suppress other arrhythmias (e.g., sinus tachycardia, AF, nonsustained VT) that cause symptoms or interfere with ICD function or cause inappropriate discharges.19,27
When ICD patients need drugs because of frequent shocks, the weight of evidence supports optimizing beta blocker therapy. When long-term antiarrhythmic therapy is required, amiodarone is the drug of choice. Sotalol is less effective than amiodarone and can cause torsades de pointes. Azimilide may be effective with fewer side effects (except torsades de pointes), but is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or European authorities, and experience is limited. No comparative data for amiodarone and azimilide are available. For patients who cannot tolerate amiodarone or sotalol, dofetilide has been suggested as an alternative.27
Although some reports suggested the early use of antiarrhythmic drugs (prophylactically or after a single ICD shock), early prophylactic use may overtreat a large group of patients who will never have an ICD intervention but are exposed to drug side effects; or the drug may elicit an ICD intervention due to proarrhythmia. At this point, the decision as to when to start adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients who receive an ICD for secondary prevention should be individualized, with the expectation that well-designed therapy can reduce ICD shocks and improve quality of life. Until more data are available, routine use of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drugs in device patients does not appear to be warranted.27