Search

Background: Data regarding the prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with electrical storm (ES) is rare. Objectives: This study sought to assess the prognostic impact of AF in patients with ES on mortality, rehospitalization, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and recurrence of ES (ES-R). Methods: All consecutive implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients presenting with ES were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Patients with AF were compared to non-AF patients. The primary prognostic endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, rehospitalization rates, MACE and ES-R. Results: A total of 87 ES patients with ICD were included and followed up to 2.5 years; 43% suffered from AF. The presence of AF was associated with increased all-cause mortality (47 vs. 29%, log-rank p = 0.052; hazard ratio [HR] 1.969, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.981–3.952, p = 0.057), which was no longer present after multivariable adjustment for age, diabetes and dilated cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, AF was associated with increased rates of overall rehospitalization (61 vs. 31%, log-rank p = 0.013; HR 2.381, 95% CI 1.247–4.547, p = 0.009), especially due to AF (14 vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and acute heart failure (AHF) (28 vs. 10%, p = 0.018; HR 3.754, 95% CI 1.277–11.038, p = 0.016). Notably, AF was not associated with differences in MACE (55 vs. 37%, log rank p = 0.339) and ES-R (28 vs. 25%, log rank p = 0.704). Conclusion: In ES patients, presence of AF was univariably associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality at 2.5 years. Furthermore, AF was multivariably associated with overall rehospitalization, especially due to AF and AHF.

Objective: This study sought to assess the impact of treatment with digitalis on recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). Background: The data regarding outcomes of digitalis therapy in ICD recipients are limited. Methods: A large retrospective registry was used, including consecutive ICD recipients with episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia between 2002 and 2016. Patients treated with digitalis were compared to patients without digitalis treatment. The primary prognostic outcome was first recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia at 5 years. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were applied. Results: A total of 394 ICD recipients with AF and/or HF was included (26% with digitalis treatment and 74% without). Digitalis treatment was associated with decreased freedom from recurrent ventricular tachy­arrhythmias (HR = 1.423; 95% CI 1.047–1.934; p = 0.023). Accordingly, digitalis treatment was associated with decreased freedom from appropriate ICD therapies (HR = 1.622; 95% CI 1.166–2.256; p = 0.004) and, moreover, higher rates of rehospitalization (38 vs. 21%; p = 0.001) and all-cause mortality (33 vs. 20%; p = 0.011). Conclusion: Among ICD recipients suffering from AF and HF, treatment with digitalis was associated with increased rates of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias and ICD therapies. However, the endpoints may also have been driven by interactions between digitalis, AF, and HF.

Objective: This study evaluates the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Background: Data regarding recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ICD recipients according to LVEF is limited. Methods: A large retrospective registry was used, including all consecutive ICD recipients with episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) from 2002 to 2016. Patients with LVEF Results: A total of 528 consecutive ICD recipients were included (51% with LVEF ≥35% and 49% with LVEF p = 0.014; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.381; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.066–1.788; p = 0.034), mainly attributed to recurrent sustained VT in primary preventive ICD recipients. Accordingly, LVEF p = 0.001; HR = 1.810; 95% CI 1.185–2.766; p = 0.001). Finally, LVEF p = 0.005) and all-cause mortality at 5 years (13 vs. 29%; p = 0.001). Conclusion: LVEF