TY - JOUR
AU - Zimetbaum, Peter J.
AB - Abstract Nearly 450 000 individuals experience sudden cardiac death yearly in the United States. A history of prior myocardial infarction with resultant left ventricular dysfunction identifies a group at particularly high risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have proven highly effective at reducing this risk and are now increasingly implanted in patients with this risk profile. The case of Mr M, a 59-year-old man with a history of myocardial infarction, low ejection fraction, and mild congestive heart failure, who is considering implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement, illustrates the issues in having a device implanted as a prophylactic measure as well as increasing concerns due to device recalls and malfunction. A thorough discussion of the benefits and risks associated with this therapy is necessary for patients and physicians to make appropriate decisions with regard to the primary prevention of sudden death. DR REYNOLDS: Mr M is a 59-year-old man with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and a low ejection fraction who is considering implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Mr M was well until 7 years ago, when he had an acute anterior MI. He was initially treated with thrombolytics and his pain resolved. A cardiac catheterization revealed a tight lesion of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery; Mr M underwent successful stent placement across the lesion. His course was complicated by congestive heart failure (CHF); a post-MI echocardiogram showed a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25%. Mr M has done well since; he is currently without chest pain, shortness of breath, or palpitations. He has never experienced syncope but does note diminished exercise capacity. His most recent echocardiogram, performed in 2004, showed a stable ejection fraction of 25% with anteroseptal, anterior, and apical akinesis. Mr M's primary care physician now wonders whether Mr M should undergo implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Mr M is being treated for hyperlipidemia; he has no other significant past medical history. His medications include metoprolol XL (50 mg once daily), lisinopril (10 mg once daily), isosorbide mononitrate (30 mg once daily), atorvastatin (20 mg once daily) clopidogrel (75 mg once daily), and aspirin (325 mg once daily). Mr M works as a car salesman; he lives alone. He drinks alcohol rarely and does not smoke. His family history is significant for his father's death at 53 years of recurrent MI. At a recent physical examination, Mr M appeared well. His blood pressure measured 120/70 mm Hg; his jugular veins were not distended; there were no carotid bruits. His chest was clear; his cardiovascular examination showed a normal S1 and S1 without murmurs or gallops. His extremities were without edema; his pulses were intact. A recent electrocardiogram showed normal sinus rhythm with normal intervals and QRS axis. There were anterior Q waves with T-wave inversions, consistent with his large anterior MI. Mr m: his view I don't have the same exercise tolerance at all, not even close. I mean, prior to the heart attack I was able to do 5 miles at a stretch; I did about 20 miles a week, running, and I can't come close to equaling those standards right now. Unfortunately, I wish I could, that's my goal. But I think I’ve pretty much put that off, unfortunately. It's not going to happen. I’ve been talked to about putting a device in my chest that is supposed to regulate the heart. I’ve talked to a few different doctors on it, and I thought I had a grasp on the situation. But my understanding of it is that at the present time it's not a necessary thing. I’m 6 years removed from having my original procedure; I want to know why it's important to do it now. Right now, for me, right at this particular moment, there's no reason for me to do it. That's why I’m having such a hard problem as far as making a decision on it. When I talk with somebody about buying a car, I’m trying to get them to commit to spending a sum of money to do that, $30 000, $35 000. A lot of times after the fact, I have to sit down and kind of resolve in my own mind that I do the same thing every day. I talk to people every day that want to buy something, and I try to put them in a position where they can make a decision on it. The same with having this put in. I don't know that the people that I’m speaking to really have thought about it. Have they sat down and said, “Why would this person put himself in a position to have something, an operation that is not necessary at the present time, and what empirical evidence is there to make you do it?” You know, no matter what you do in life, there's always somebody that wants you to do something because they think it is the most important thing. You bring your car in, you get the oil changed; you go to a dentist; everything's important to the person that's doing it. But is it important to me? That's the question. I’d like to see something in black and white, basically. The fact that if I don't do it, I have this life expectancy. If I do it, I’m going to live another X amount of time. At the crossroads: questions for dr zimetbaum What are the current indications for ICD placement? How much does ICD placement cost and for what groups are ICDs cost-effective? Given that Mr M had an MI 7 years ago, is his risk of sudden death as high as that of someone who just had an MI? What is Mr M's life expectancy without and with an ICD? Can an electrophysiology study (EPS) help identify whether patients will benefit from an ICD? What are the complications of ICD placement? How do recipients feel? Are there any special precautions for patients with ICDs (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], metal detectors at airports, battery changes, driving if it discharges, and the like)? What do you recommend for Mr M? DR ZIMETBAUM: Mr M is a 59-year-old man with a history of MI 7 years prior to this discussion. As a consequence of his MI, he has a cardiomyopathy with LVEF of 25%. He is receiving a comprehensive and data-driven medical regimen including aspirin, metoprolol, lisinopril, and atorvastatin. He has no angina and mild symptoms consistent with class II CHF in the form of diminished exercise capacity. He has been presented with the option for the implantation of an ICD as prophylactic therapy to reduce his risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Mr M is understandably resistant to having an invasive procedure performed for a risk that seems hypothetical. He notes that had this option been presented to him in 1999 when he had his MI and was already hospitalized, he might have considered it. Now after 7 years of feeling well without a hospitalization, it doesn't make sense to him to electively choose to have a procedure done that will expose him to risk of complication and a lifelong requirement for maintenance of the implanted device. Mr M also wonders whether this recommendation is really necessary and in his best interests, or is instead a reflection of market-driven forces and the specialists' desire to perform operations for which they are well reimbursed. The discussion of the prophylactic placement of an ICD represents one of the more confusing and poorly understood consultations cardiologists perform. Much of the difficulty understanding and adapting the current recommendations for the primary prevention of sudden death comes from the rapid development of data in the last decade and the expected delay in the dissemination and acceptance of new information in medical practice.1,2 It also arises from the daunting societal costs of these therapies and the conceptual difficulty with embracing an invasive therapy to reduce the risk of an event often with no associated prior symptoms. These factors are further complicated by the ultimate consequence of being wrong (ie, death). The process of understanding the potential benefit of ICD implantation begins with understanding the risk of death without ICD. Cardiovascular death is traditionally characterized as sudden arrhythmic death and death due to pump failure. Arrhythmic death is the target for prevention by ICD implantation (Figure 1), and the process of selecting patients at greatest potential need of these devices remains a significant challenge for medical science. Evidence for ICDs in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Depressed LV Function Approximately 450 000 people in the United States die of sudden cardiac death each year.2 The vast majority of these deaths occur in patients without discernible risk factors. One group of patients, those like Mr M with coronary artery disease (CAD) resulting in impaired ventricular function, have been identified as particularly at risk for sudden death.3,4 The risk of sudden death is increased at least 2-fold among patients with CAD, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), and reduced (<40%) ventricular function,3-5 due primarily to scar-mediated sustained ventricular arrhythmias. Efforts to decrease this mortality with antiarrhythmic drugs proved at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.6,7 In the mid 1990s, 2 trials, the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT 1)8 and Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT)9 identified patients with prior MI, LVEF less than 40%, NSVT, and ventricular tachycardia induced during EPS, and randomized them to receive standard medical therapy compared with antiarrhythmic therapy (primarily ICDs). Differences existed between these studies, but the remarkable finding was a 23% reduction in absolute mortality in the patients treated with the ICD during 2 to 3 years of follow-up. In other words, approximately 4 patients with these risk factors would need to have an ICD implanted to save 1 life. Quiz Ref IDSubsequent trials (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial 2 [MADIT 2]10 and Sudden Cardiac Death Heart Failure Trial [SCD-HeFT]11) have studied slightly sicker patients (LVEF<30% in MADIT 2 or <35% with CHF in SCD-HeFT) and have eliminated the requirement to demonstrate ambient ventricular ectopy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia at invasive electrophysiologic testing. The reduction in absolute mortality has been more modest in these trials (5%-7%) but still significant, with approximately 11 to 17 patients treated to save 1 life (Table). Mr M would have met criteria to be enrolled in the later studies; based on those results, he could gain an average 6% reduction in his risk of sudden cardiac death (Table). Influence of Time Following MI on Risk of Sudden Death Mr M's belief that he should be safe given the 7 years that have passed since his MI makes intuitive sense. At the time of an MI, nearly half a patient's ensuing mortality risk will be due to sudden arrhythmic death. The Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) study enrolled 14 000 patients similar to Mr M within 6 days of MI; they all had left ventricular dysfunction (≤40%) and/or heart failure.12 These patients were randomized to receive treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, or both. In a substudy, these patients were found to have the greatest risk of sudden death during the first month following MI. This risk decreased thereafter and reached a constant rate at 1 year. In this analysis, risk was greatest (2.5%) in the first month in those with an ejection fraction of 30% or less. The rate of sudden death then plateaued at 0.15% per month thereafter. Quiz Ref IDInterestingly, a separate study evaluating the role of ICDs in the early postinfarction period (Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial [DINAMIT]) found no mortality benefit associated with early post-MI ICD implantation (6-40 days following MI) for patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less.13 Multiple factors including recovery of left ventricular function, sudden death due to recurrent ischemia not mitigated by an ICD, and possible excess mortality related to the ICD in the early post-MI period may have contributed to this negative result. Currently, guidelines require that decisions regarding ICD implantation be delayed beyond 40 days following an MI.14 Mr M is beyond the early post-MI phase, but is well-represented by 2 of the previously cited trials. The control groups of the MUSTT and MADIT 2 trials enrolled patients an average of 3 and 7 years following MI, respectively. These trials included patients with a high incidence of CHF and a modest rate of β-blocker and ACEI use and found that during a mean follow-up of 3 years, mortality rates were more than twice those documented in VALIANT.12Quiz Ref IDA substudy from MADIT 2 evaluated the influence of time post-MI on benefit derived from ICD implantation.15 In this analysis the reduction in mortality associated with ICD implantation persisted even in patients enrolled longer than 10 years following an MI. Therefore, current practice is to wait at least 6 weeks post-MI but not to limit how long after MI an ICD will be considered. In summary, Mr M can assume he continues to be at elevated risk for arrhythmia despite the 7 years that have passed since his MI, and that an ICD could reduce that risk. Tests to Identify Who Will Benefit From an ICD Another important initiative to improve use of ICD therapy is to more effectively select patients who will benefit. Currently, noninvasive predictors of risk include the degree of LV dysfunction as well as electrocardiographic tests that identify abnormal electrical function. Programmed stimulation of the right ventricle is a minimally invasive procedure that historically has been the gold standard for identifying arrhythmia risk. Invasive Electrophysiologic Testing. The role of electrophysiologic testing for risk stratification was most directly tested in MUSTT,16 which required a positive study for enrollment. Patients were then randomized to receive standard medical therapy or antiarrhythmic therapy (largely ICD). Patients who did not have a sustained ventricular arrhythmia induced at EPS were followed in a registry. Patients who had a ventricular arrhythmia induced and were in the control group had a 2-year incidence of sudden death of 18%, whereas patients who had no arrhythmia induced and were followed in the registry had a 2-year incidence of sudden death of 12%. The significant risk of mortality in the noninducible group in the MUSTT study supported the elimination of EPS as an enrollment requirement in MADIT 2. A substudy of the MADIT 2 trial in which an EPS was performed demonstrated that a positive EPS, found in 593 of the 742 ICD-treated patients, correlated with an increase in the risk of subsequent ventricular tachycardia but not ventricular fibrillation.17 Currently, EPS is not required for risk stratification in patients with CAD and an LVEF of less than 30%, and this study would add little predictive value for Mr M. For patients with an ejection fraction of between 30% and 40%, EPS may add some predictive value, but as demonstrated in the MUSTT registry, still misses a significant proportion of patients at risk for lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Left Ventricular Dysfunction. The degree of left ventricular dysfunction, particularly when less than 40%, remains one of the strongest predictors of sudden death and all-cause mortality. This association has been consistently demonstrated both before and since the advent of primary reperfusion therapies and aggressive medication use post-MI.3-5 This association is particularly strong when the ejection fraction is below 30%, as is the case for Mr M.12 Unfortunately, reduced ejection fraction is not by itself a sufficient stratifier of risk of sudden death. Specifically, a significant group of patients with CAD and an ejection fraction above 30% remain at risk of sudden death and require other markers to help identify them. Congestive Heart Failure. The presence of CHF in patients with CAD and depressed ejection fraction increases the risk of sudden death and all-cause mortality.1,11,18 The Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF) study of β-blocker use in New York Heart Association class II to IV CHF found that the rates of sudden and all-cause mortality increase with increasing class of heart failure.19 However, the relative proportion of sudden to all-cause mortality was substantially greater in patients with less severe heart failure (class II with a rate of sudden death of 64% compared with 59% and 33% for class III or IV, respectively). Therefore, the presence of CHF, even when relatively compensated, increases the risk of sudden death. Mr M's complaints of exercise intolerance suggest class II CHF. Current guidelines support the implantation of ICDs in patients with class II and III CHF or patients with coronary or noncoronary-related cardiomyopathy and an ejection fraction of 35% or less2,14,20 (Box). Box. Current Recommendations for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) for the Primary Prevention of Sudden Death* Class 1 indication (conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective): Documented prior myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 30% to 40% or less, the MI must have occurred more than 40 days prior to ICD implantation, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III congestive heart failure (CHF) Nonischemic cardiomyopathy of greater than 9 months' duration with LVEF 35% or less and NYHA class II or III CHF Class 2 indication (conditions for which the weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy): Documented prior MI, LVEF 30% to 35% or less, NYHA class I CHF; the MI must have occurred more than 40 days prior to ICD implantation *Based on 2006 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/European Society of Cardiology guidelines.14 Ventricular Arrhythmia. The first 2 trials of ICD use for primary prevention of sudden death (MADIT 18 and MUSTT9) required the presence of NSVT at least 1 month post-MI for inclusion. A more recent evaluation of 2130 patients with acute MI, of whom 70% had undergone coronary revascularization and 94% were treated with β-blockers, found that NSVT was a more robust predictor of sudden death in patients with more preserved ventricular function than in those with LVEF below 35%.21 This finding supports the elimination of NSVT as a requirement in the MADIT 2 study where ejection fraction alone qualified patients for enrollment.10 In summary, NSVT is a relevant finding to identify risk in patients with CAD and an ejection fraction between 30% and 40% but not for those with ejection fraction below 30%. The timing and method of identifying NSVT remain unstandardized. Prolonged QRS Duration. In the MUSTT study,9 QRS prolongation with a left bundle branch block but not a right bundle branch block was associated with an increase in sudden and all-cause mortality.22 Patients with depressed LV function due to CAD are considered candidates for ICD regardless of QRS morphology, but patients with left bundle branch block often have dysynchronous activation of the left ventricle and should be considered for cardiac resynchronization with a biventricular ICD.20 T-Wave Alternans. T-wave alternans (TWA) refers to microscopic alternans of the T-wave amplitude (T-wave timing or morphology), which may predict arrhythmic risk in patients with abnormal cardiac substrate.23 This test is performed with specialized analysis of the electrocardiogram during a stress test. A recent randomized controlled trial of TWA in patients with CAD and LVEF less than 40% demonstrated that a negative test was associated with a 97.5% 2-year survival, supporting the excellent negative predictive value of this marker.24 The value of a positive test is of modest value (15% rate of death at 2 years), and its performance is limited in patients who cannot exercise and reach a target heart rate of more than 105 beats/min. The widespread use of TWA for risk stratification will depend on its performance in larger randomized clinical trials. Nonetheless, a negative TWA study would provide some reassurance for Mr M should he remain reluctant to have an ICD implanted. The previously described markers for sudden death remain inadequate to fully capture the entirety of the “at risk” population and to exclude those who do not require primary prevention. Many of these markers have not yet been tested thoroughly enough to allow their inclusion in clinical guidelines. Studies are ongoing to evaluate the utility of some of these newer markers alone and in combination to improve the specificity of our recommendations. The characteristics of patients currently receiving ICDs for the primary prevention of sudden death and their outcomes will be tracked by hospitals participating in the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) ICD registry.25 Current guidelines for the primary prevention of sudden death (Box) would identify Mr M as having a class I indication for ICD implantation.14 Risks of ICD Implantation Mr M is appropriately cautious about undergoing a surgery. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are implanted using local anesthesia with conscious sedation. The acute risks of implantation include cardiac or vascular perforation, pneumothorax, and lead dislodgement. These complications are relatively uncommon (<3%).26,27 Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator pocket hematomas occur frequently, particularly in patients receiving anticoagulation.26 The longer-term morbidity associated with ICDs include inappropriate therapies (shocks) delivered most often when a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia is mistaken for a ventricular tachyarrhythmia.28 The frequency of these inappropriate therapies has decreased with the development of increasingly sophisticated device algorithms that differentiate supraventricular tachycardia from ventricular tachycardia, but still occur in 15% of patients over the lifetime of their device.28-30 “Storms” of inappropriate or appropriate ICD discharges are unusual but can result in severe anxiety and depression.31-33 Lead fracture or insulation breach can occur, particularly in physically active individuals who engage in repetitive upper extremity exercises. In one series of patients with device-related complications, 2% to 7% of patients had lead fractures or insulation defects.26 Infections of the device pocket or intravascular lead systems occur in 0.5% to 2% of cases, particularly in the setting of generator replacements, and may require the removal of the entire system.34 Removal of these systems can be hazardous and is associated with a 1% mortality rate.34 Finally, mechanical dysfunction due to manufacturing error can lead to system recalls.35 Mechanical dysfunction can involve all components of the ICD system including the ICD generator (eg, battery, capacitor, screw mechanism that secures the leads to the generator) as well as all components of the pacing and defibrillating leads (Figure 2). Some of these malfunctions involve components of the ICD system, which require mandatory replacement, while others can be fixed with noninvasive programming.36 Economic Factors Associated With ICD Implantation Mr M is concerned that the physician's economic incentive to implant ICDs may both influence their recommendations and make them less sensitive to a patient's reluctance to have a device implanted. This concern is understandable and is partly why physicians are compelled to practice evidence-based selection for ICD implantation according to published criteria.14 Ultimately, if Mr M is concerned that his physician does not have his best interests in mind, he should pursue a second opinion. The health care system as a whole should be concerned with the expenditures related to ICDs. The above noted trials have confirmed the superiority of the ICD compared with standard medical therapy and have resulted in a startling increase in the number of ICDs implanted in the United States.37 According to the Massachusetts Medicare fee schedule, the Medicare diagnosis related group payment to the hospital for ICD implantation is currently $45 000, plus the additional physician fee of approximately $1000.38 A cost-based analysis that included the above-described trials found that ICD implantation for primary prevention added 1 to 3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The calculated cost per QALY saved ranged from $34 900 to $70 200.39 Typically, costs within the range of $50 000 to $100 000 per QALY gained are acceptable in the United States for preventive treatments. Conversely, a recently published economic analysis of the MADIT 2 study that showed a significant but lower reduction in risk of death found an unfavorable cost of $235 000 per year of life saved over the short duration (3.5 years) of the study.40 Mr M's characteristics place him in this group. The authors estimated that costs would decline to $80 000 to $110 000 per year of life saved over 10 to 12 years of follow-up. Follow-up for Patients With ICDs Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators should be interrogated in the ICD clinic 2 to 3 times a year.41,42 Many physicians recommend bringing patients into the hospital once a year to induce ventricular fibrillation and make certain the device detects and treats it appropriately.41,42 The device is “interrogated” through application of a programming magnet over the skin. This is performed regularly to make certain that the ICD system is functioning appropriately and to document any abnormal heart rhythms that may have occurred between office visits. New technology will allow much of this device interrogation to occur wirelessly.43 Quiz Ref IDThe battery life is typically 5 years, and indicators of the end of battery life begin to occur within a year of battery depletion. Battery or generator replacement is a simple procedure with minimal morbidity.26 System malfunctions are indicated by a beeping tone that is audible to the patient and should trigger a visit to the ICD clinic. Recommendations for driving once an ICD is implanted vary by state.44 If the device is placed for primary prevention (no symptomatic arrhythmia), driving is allowed 2 weeks postprocedure. In general, patients should not drive for at least 6 months following a symptomatic arrhythmia including an appropriate ICD discharge.44 Patients should be warned that an ICD discharge is painful and generally feels like a strong punch to the chest (Figure 1A).42 Arrhythmias that are terminated by programmed rapid (antitachycardia) pacing (Figure 1B) are generally asymptomatic and are only detected during routine ICD evaluation.42 Quiz Ref IDCurrent ICDs are well insulated against microwaves and are unaffected by cell phones.45,46 Exposure to the magnetic field of an MRI or arc welder can damage the ICD system and render it ineffective.45,46 Airport security screening magnets can temporarily suspend the device's ability to detect tachyarrhythmias.47 The placement of a magnet over the device generator will also suspend the device's ability to detect tachyarrhythmias. Magnet application is useful during surgery where electrocautery can cause signals that might otherwise be misinterpreted as ventricular tachyarrhythmia by the device.45 Deciding Whether to Undergo ICD Implantation Mr M meets criteria for an ICD based on the findings of the MADIT 2 study without need for a screening EPS. Despite these recommendations, Mr M feels well and would like to avoid invasive procedures, including ICD implantation. The fact that he is being treated with an optimal medical regimen and has a normal QRS duration and minimal (class II) CHF may improve his prognosis. His risk of sudden death could be further characterized in a noninvasive way with a negative TWA test, potentially offering reassurance of a reduced risk of arrhythmic death. Nonetheless, Mr M must understand that should he die from a cardiac cause in the next few years, it would likely be from a lethal ventricular arrhythmia that might be prevented by an ICD. The final and perhaps most important part of the discussion for Mr M should relate to how the facts he has learned about ICD implantation relate to his personal views of how he lives his life. For some patients, the security of having an ICD to terminate a lethal arrhythmia provides great personal comfort for themselves and their families. In other patients, the physical presence of a device and the stress associated with its firing both appropriately and inappropriately significantly impairs quality of life. Some patients, particularly those with advanced CHF, may find a death due to a ventricular arrhythmia more appealing than that due to recurrent pulmonary edema or low output failure. Similarly, an elderly patient may not wish to have life prolonged and may find a lethal ventricular arrhythmia preferable to other possible causes of death. Many patients find discussions with ICD support groups helpful to further inform decisions about implantation of the ICD as well as clarify unresolved questions about life with a defibrillator. Ultimately, physicians have a responsibility to not just present the data, but also to have honest and personal discussions with patients about the implications of their decisions. If the data are presented with clarity and compassion, patients can make the decisions that are right for them. Questions and discussion QUESTION: A recent JAMA article suggests that women are at much lower risk of sudden cardiac death than men.48 And I wonder if you can comment on whether any of these studies included women, and if so, if they’ve been investigated as a subset. DR ZIMETBAUM: The recently published article reported a low incidence of sudden death occurring during exercise in women compared with men. This risk was made even smaller with regular (>4 hours per week) aerobic exercise. In general, women were relatively underrepresented in the randomized trials of ICD for primary prevention (Table). Population-based studies have, however, noted relatively equivalent rates of sudden death in women compared with men.49 Until further study of women suggests otherwise, I believe clinicians should treat men and women alike in following the guidelines mentioned. QUESTION: A lot of this decision hangs on the question of what the patient's ejection fraction is, which is notoriously subjective. Has there been any sort of push toward standardizing calculation of ejection fraction? Because easily in the community you could see people pushing toward, “Oh, it's less than 30.” DR ZIMETBAUM: That is a very important question. In most clinical situations left ventricular function is determined by a fairly subjective evaluation of the contractile function, ie, a rough estimation of ejection fraction from an echocardiogram. We base our decisions on the echocardiographic ejection fraction given that this was the modality used in most studies. A more quantitative estimate of the ejection fraction can be obtained by MRI, which we occasionally employ if the echocardiographic windows are suboptimal. I am hopeful that future studies of new technologies will allow us to make decisions regarding ICD placement based on multiple risk predictors which will include but not be solely dependent upon the ejection fraction. Back to top Article Information Corresponding Author: Peter J. Zimetbaum, MD, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 185 Pilgrim Rd, Baker 4, Boston, MA 02215 (pzimetba@bidmc.harvard.edu). Financial Disclosures: None reported. Funding/Support: This Clinical Crossroads is made possible in part by a grant from the Jacqueline and Martin J. Shaevel Charitable Trust. Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization did not participate in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Acknowledgment: We would like to thank the patient for sharing his story. This conference took place at the Medicine Grand Rounds held at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass, on March 23, 2006. Clinical Crossroads at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is produced and edited by Risa B. Burns, MD, Eileen E. Reynolds, MD, and Amy N. Ship, MD. Tom Delbanco, MD, is series editor. References 1. Zheng Z-J, Croft JB, Giles WH, Mensah GA. Sudden cardiac death in the United States, 1989 to 1998. Circulation. 2001;104:2158-216311684624Google ScholarCrossref 2. Goldberger Z, Lampert R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications and technologies. JAMA. 2006;295:809-81816478904Google ScholarCrossref 3. Risk stratification and survival after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:331-3366866068Google ScholarCrossref 4. Josephson M, Wellens HJ. Implantable defibrillators and sudden cardiac death. Circulation. 2004;109:2685-269115184292Google ScholarCrossref 5. Tavazzi L, Volpi A. Remarks about postinfarction prognosis in light of the experience with the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della sopravvivenza nell’infarcto miocardico (GISSI) trials. Circulation. 1997;95:1341-13459054869Google ScholarCrossref 6. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB. et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide,or placebo: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781-7881900101Google ScholarCrossref 7. Julian DG, Camm A, Frangin G. et al. Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. Lancet. 1997;349:667-6749078197Google ScholarCrossref 8. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS. et al. 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. 1996;335:1933-19408960472Google ScholarCrossref 9. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD. et al. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1882-189010601507Google ScholarCrossref 10. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ. et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877-88311907286Google ScholarCrossref 11. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB. et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225-23715659722Google ScholarCrossref 12. Solomon SD, Zelenkofske S, McMurray JJ. et al. Sudden death in patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2581-258815972864Google ScholarCrossref 13. Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P. et al. Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2481-248815590950Google ScholarCrossref 14. Zipes D, Camm A, Borggrefe M. et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death). Circulation. 2006;114:e385-e48416935995Google ScholarCrossref 15. Wilber DJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ. et al. Time dependence of mortality risk and defibrillator benefit after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2004;109:1082-108414993128Google ScholarCrossref 16. Buxton AE, Lee KL, DiCarlo L. et al. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. Electrophysiologic testing to identify patients with coronary artery disease who are at risk for sudden death. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1937-194510874061Google ScholarCrossref 17. Daubert J, Zareba W, Hall J. et al. Predictive value of ventricular arrhythmia inducibility for subsequent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:98-10716386671Google ScholarCrossref 18. Narang R, Cleland JG, Erhardt L. et al. Mode of death in chronic heart failure: a request and proposition for more accurate classification. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:1390-14038880025Google ScholarCrossref 19. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353:2001-200710376614Google ScholarCrossref 20. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH. et al. ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult. Circulation. 2005;112:e154-e23516160202Google ScholarCrossref 21. Makikallio TH, Barthel P, Schneider R. et al. Frequency of sudden cardiac death among acute myocardial infarction survivors with optimized medical and revascularization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:480-48416461041Google ScholarCrossref 22. Zimetbaum PJ, Buxton AE, Batsford W. et al. Electrocardiographic predictors of arrhythmic death and total mortality in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial. Circulation. 2004;110:766-76915289365Google ScholarCrossref 23. Narayan SM. T-wave alternans and the susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:269-28116412847Google ScholarCrossref 24. Bloomfield DM, Bigger JT, Steinman RC. et al. Microvolt T-wave alternans and the risk of death or sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:456-46316412877Google ScholarCrossref 25. National Cardiovascular Data Registry Web site. http://www.accncdr.com. Accessed March 29, 2007 26. Alter P, Waldhans S, Plachta E, Moosdorf R, Grimm W. Complications of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in 440 consecutive patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28:926-93216176531Google ScholarCrossref 27. Reynolds MR, Cohen DJ, Kugelmass AD. et al. The frequency and incremental cost of major complications among Medicare beneficiaries receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2493-249716781379Google ScholarCrossref 28. Gehi AK, Mehta D, Gomes A. Evaluation and management of patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock. JAMA. 2006;296:2839-284717179461Google ScholarCrossref 29. Germano JJ, Reynolds M, Essebag V, Josephson M. Frequency and causes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies: is device therapy proarrhythmic? Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:1255-126116616037Google ScholarCrossref 30. Sweeney MO, Wathen MS, Volosin K. et al. Appropriate and inappropriate ventricular therapies, quality of life, and mortality among primary and secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: results from the Pacing Fast VT REduces Shock ThErapies (PainFREE Rx II) trial. Circulation. 2005;111:2898-290515927965Google ScholarCrossref 31. Sears SF, Shea JB, Conti JB. How to respond to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock. Circulation. 2005;111:e380-e38215956139Google ScholarCrossref 32. Sears SF, Todaro JF, Urizar G. et al. Assessing the psychosocial impact of the ICD: a national survey of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator health care providers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000;23:939-94510879376Google ScholarCrossref 33. Schron EB, Exner DV, Yao Q. et al. Quality of life in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial. Circulation. 2002;105:589-59411827924Google ScholarCrossref 34. Gould PA, Krahn AD.Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Working Group on Device Advisories. Complications associated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement in response to device advisories. JAMA. 2006;295:1907-191116639049Google ScholarCrossref 35. Maisel WH, Moynahan M, Zuckerman BD. et al. Pacemaker and ICD generator malfunctions: analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual reports. JAMA. 2006;295:1901-190616639048Google ScholarCrossref 36. Amin MS, Matchar DB, Wood MA, Ellenbogen KA. Management of recalled pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. JAMA. 2006;296:412-42016868299Google ScholarCrossref 37. Jauhar S, Slotwiner DJ. The economics of ICDs. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2542-254415590958Google ScholarCrossref 38. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician fee schedule look-up. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pfslookup. Accessed April 16, 2007 39. Sanders GD, Hlatky MA, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1471-148016207849Google ScholarCrossref 40. Zwanziger J, Hall WJ, Dick AW. et al. The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2310-231816750701Google ScholarCrossref 41. Senges-Becker JC, Klostermann M, Becker R. et al. What is the optimal follow-up schedule for ICD patients? Europace. 2005;7:319-32615944090Google ScholarCrossref 42. Reiffel JA. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: patient perspective. Circulation. 2002;105:1022-102411877346Google ScholarCrossref 43. Medtronic Web site. http://www.medtronic.com/physician/patientmanagement/wireless.html. Accessed March 29, 2007 44. Epstein AE, Miles WM, Benditt DG. et al. Personal and public safety assessment related to arrhythmias that may affect consciousness: implications for regulation and physician recommendations. Circulation. 1996;94:1147-11668790068Google ScholarCrossref 45. Goldschlager N, Epstein A, Friedman P. et al. Environmental and drug effects on patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators: a practical guide to patient treatment. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:649-65511231696Google ScholarCrossref 46. Pinski SL, Trohman RG. Interference in implanted devices, part 1. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002;25:1367-138112380774Google ScholarCrossref 47. Kolb C, Schmieder S, Lehmann G. et al. Do airport metal detectors interfere with implanted pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:2054-205912798581Google ScholarCrossref 48. Whang W, Manson JE, Hu FB. et al. Physical exertion, exercise, and sudden cardiac death in women. JAMA. 2006;295:1399-140316551711Google ScholarCrossref 49. Chugh SS, Jui J, Gunson K. et al. Current burden of sudden cardiac death: multiple source surveillance versus retrospective death certificate-based review in a large US community. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1268-127515364331Google ScholarCrossref
TI - A 59-Year-Old Man Considering Implantation of a Cardiac Defibrillator
JO - JAMA
DO - 10.1001/jama.297.17.1909
DA - 2007-05-02
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-medical-association/a-59-year-old-man-considering-implantation-of-a-cardiac-defibrillator-gJ07kkCcrt
SP - 1909
EP - 1916
VL - 297
IS - 17
DP - DeepDyve
ER -