Ellenbogen, Kenneth A

Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types of devices that include the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. To ensure optimal use of these devices and to achieve best patient outcomes, clinicians need to understand how these devices work, learn the characteristics of patients who qualify them for one type of device versus another, and recognize the remaining gaps in knowledge surrounding these devices. The transvenous ICD has been shown in several randomized clinical trials to improve the survival of patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation and those with sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncope or systolic heart failure as a result of ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy despite receiving guideline-directed medical therapy. Important gaps in knowledge regarding the transvenous ICD involve the role of the ICD in patient subgroups not included, or not well represented, in clinical trials and the need to refine the selection criteria for the ICD in patients who are indicated for it. S-ICDs were recently introduced into the clinical arena as another option for many patients who have an approved indication for a transvenous ICD. The main advantage of the S-ICD is a lower risk of infection and lead-related complications; however, the S-ICD does not offer bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing. The S-ICD may be ideal for patients with limited vascular access, high infection risk, or some congenital heart diseases. However, more data are needed regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the S-ICD in comparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-ICD with other novel technologies, including leadless pacemakers. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS width ≥130 ms, and New York Heart Association class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and several echocardiographic measures. One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate. Many initiatives are underway to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologies and enhanced selection of patients and device programming.

© 2016 Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology Foundation, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions

Abstract Aims For patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA), initial single-chamber right ventricular (RV)-only pacing is standard. Given the deleterious effects of chronic RV-only pacing, the impact of an initial biventricular (BiV) pacing strategy post-ablation is of interest. Methods and results We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effect of BiV vs. RV-only pacing in patients undergoing AVNA for refractory atrial fibrillation. A search of multiple electronic databases identified 921 reports, which included four randomized controlled trials (n = 534). Mean New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was 2.3 and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 44%. When compared with RV-only pacing, BiV pacing was not associated with reduced mortality [risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–1.82, P = 0.68]. In three studies comprised of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (mean EF 41 ± 3%), BiV pacing demonstrated a non-significant reduction in cardiac mortality (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.25–1.39; P = 0.23). Compared with RV-only pacing, BiV pacing was associated with significant improvement in symptoms [Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) 2.72 points fewer, 95% CI 1.45–3.99] and increased LVEF (+2.6%, 95% CI 1.69–3.44), but no significant change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD) (5.02 ms more, 95% CI −1.56 to 11.59; P = 0.13). Conclusions In patients with refractory AF undergoing AVNA, BiV pacing was not associated with significantly improved survival when compared with RV-only pacing. A modest, but significant improvement in structural and functional response to BiV pacing was observed.