MacIntyre, Ciorsti

Abstract Background and Aims Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are critical for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). This study aims to identify cross-continental differences in utilization of primary prevention ICDs and survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ARVC. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of ARVC patients without prior VA enrolled in clinical registries from 11 countries throughout Europe and North America. Patients were classified according to whether they received treatment in North America or Europe and were further stratified by baseline predicted VA risk into low- (<10%/5 years), intermediate- (10%–25%/5 years), and high-risk (>25%/5 years) groups. Differences in ICD implantation and survival free from sustained VA events (including appropriate ICD therapy) were assessed. Results One thousand ninety-eight patients were followed for a median of 5.1 years; 554 (50.5%) received a primary prevention ICD, and 286 (26.0%) experienced a first VA event. After adjusting for baseline risk factors, North Americans were more than three times as likely to receive ICDs {hazard ratio (HR) 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5, 3.8]} but had only mildly increased risk for incident sustained VA [HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.8)]. North Americans without ICDs were at higher risk for incident sustained VA [HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3, 3.4)] than Europeans. Conclusions North American ARVC patients were substantially more likely than Europeans to receive primary prevention ICDs across all arrhythmic risk strata. A lower rate of ICD implantation in Europe was not associated with a higher rate of VA events in those without ICDs.

Introduction: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and death (SCD) are the most serious sequelae of many genetic heart diseases (GHDs). Increased awareness of this has led to increased detection in employment screenings. For patients in high-risk jobs, premature and potentially unnecessary termination from their profession, rather than “Return-to-Work (RTW),” has become an undesired consequence of this awareness. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients with GHDs in high-risk professions who were allowed to RTW. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 3,641 working-age patients referred for evaluation of a potential GHD between 6/2000-12/2021 to identify those either in or being recruited into a high-risk profession. A profession was defined as “high-risk” if it is safety-sensitive or required regular medical evaluations. Charts were reviewed for medical history, RTW decision making, and breakthrough cardiac events (BCEs). Results: Overall, 33 patients [(0.9%); 3 females (9%); mean age at diagnosis 25 ± 15 years] had been either put on hold from their high-risk job (n = 15; 45%) or disqualified as a recruit (18; 55%) prior to our evaluation due to their GHD diagnosis. This included 15 military, 10 pilots, 6 law enforcement and first responders, and 2 commercial driver license professionals and recruits. Most patients were diagnosed with Long QT syndrome (n = 23; 70%). After treatment initiation, 14 (93%) professionals and 16 (89%) recruits received physician RTW approval while 3 (9%) patients did not receive RTW approval due to disease severity and/or unwillingness to initiate treatment. Of the remaining 14 professionals that received physician RTW approval, 4 (29%) were not allowed to return to their jobs, while 14/16 recruits (88%) were not permitted to start their career. None of the RTW-approved patients had a BCE after evaluation (160.7 follow-up years). Conclusions: Patients with GHDs in high-risk professions are often terminated due to perceived SCA/SCD risk. However, within our small cohort, the risk of BCEs in optimally treated patients was low. This data suggests that the certification process of individuals in these high-risk and safety-sensitive occupations should be further examined and potentially modified.

Background: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a genetic heart disease affecting about 1 in 2000 persons. Around 40% of patients with LQTS can have a nondiagnostic, normal QTc at rest. The treadmill exercise stress test (TEST) can help unmask patients with concealed LQTS with a characteristic maladaptive, paradoxical increase in QTc ( 460 ms) during the recovery phase. In fact, the recovery phase QTc value has been added to the latest diagnostic score for LQTS. Objective: To characterize the TEST-derived QTc profile of untreated patients with LQTS and determine its diagnostic and prognostic utility. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on TEST data derived from 249 patients with LQTS (129 LQT1, 64 LQT2 and 56 LQT3) untreated at the time of their TEST compared with 236 controls. The Bazett’s corrected QTc was calculated at rest (sitting, supine, and standing), during exercise at 1 min, 3 mins, and peak exercise, and during recovery phase at 1, 3 and 5 mins. Results: The mean resting QTc was significantly higher in LQTS patients (457 ± 30 ms) compared to controls (420 ± 24 ms; p<0.0001) as well as at every stage during the TEST (p<0.001). For LQT1 patients, highest QTc was observed at peak exercise (mean 496 ± 38 ms) and during the third minute of recovery phase (mean 500 ± 40 ms). In contrast, LQT2 patients showed the lowest QTc (mean 452 ± 48 ms) during peak exercise but the greatest QTc latency (QTc at 5 min - QTc at 1 min recovery; mean QTc latency 33 ± 77 ms; p=0.005) compared to controls. For LQT3, the mean QTc was greatest at rest compared to controls (p<0.001), and there was no difference during exercise and recovery phases. Among 162 LQT1 and LQT2 patients that presented with concealed LQTS, 119 (73%) showed a maladaptive QT response. ROC analysis showed that in patients with LQT1, a maladaptive QTc > 523 ms at 3 min of recovery was highly predictive of breakthrough cardiac events (AUC 0.84; sensitivity 100%, specificity 72%); no such association was identified for LQT2 or 3. Conclusions: This comprehensive characterization of the QTc response before, during, and after a TEST in the largest untreated cohort of patients with LQTS provides important genotype-specific characteristics and can be used as a predictor for potential LQT1-triggered cardiac events after diagnosis and treatment.

Background: The estimated prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) globally is about 5%. For patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), ADHD-directed stimulant therapy is relatively contraindicated. However, previous studies have shown that use of these treatments is safe for patients with long QT syndrome, a similar genetic heart disease. Whether this is the same for patients with CPVT remains unknown. Objective: To evaluate ADHD-directed treatment, outcome, and frequency of CPVT-triggered events in patients with CPVT and concomitant ADHD. Methods: A retrospective electronic medical record review of 216 patients with CPVT evaluated in Mayo Clinic’s Windland Smith Rice Genetic Heart Rhythm Clinic was performed to determine the prevalence of concomitant ADHD and the incidence of CPVT-triggered events in these patients. Results: Overall, 14 patients (6%) were diagnosed with CPVT and concomitant ADHD (6 female, average age 19 ± 3 years). At the time of first evaluation, ADHD-directed stimulant therapy was stopped or advised against in 8/14 patients (57%). It was (re)started in 11 patients (79%) following comprehensive evaluation and treatment initiation for CPVT with pharmacologic therapy in 14/14 patients (100%), denervation surgery in 12 (86%), and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in 4 (29%). Prior to Mayo Clinic evaluation, 10 patients (71%) treated for CPVT had a breakthrough cardiac event, without being on stimulant therapy, while 4 patients (29%) had an event while being treated for both CPVT and ADHD for an average time on stimulant therapy of 6 ± 6 years. Following CPVT treatment optimization and ADHD stimulant (re)initiation, patients have remained event-free for a total of 82 patient years (mean follow-up 6 ± 5 years). Conclusion: Among patients with CPVT, the prevalence of ADHD was similar to that in the general population, which can be treated safely and effectively with stimulant therapy. Although the rate of adverse events was low in stimulant-treated patients, physicians should weigh the potential effects of suboptimal treatment of ADHD with the theoretical proarrhythmic risk from stimulant medications on a case-by-case basis.