Abstract
Background
Patients with heart failure and an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention are at increased mortality risk after receiving shock therapy. We sought to determine the prognostic significance of ICD therapies, both shock and antitachycardia pacing, delivered for different ventricular arrhythmia (VA) rates.
Methods and Results
We evaluated mortality risk among 1790 ICD‐implanted patients from MADIT‐CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy). For the first analysis, patients were divided into mutually exclusive groups by the rate of treated VA only: slow VA (<200 beats per minute) and fast VA (≥200 beats per minute or ventricular fibrillation). In a secondary analysis, both the type of ICD therapy and VA rate were used. The reference group was always patients who had no ICD therapy. ICD therapy for fast VA was associated with increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27; 95% CI, 1.48–3.48; P<0.001). However, mortality risk after ICD therapy for slow VA was similar to the risk related to no ICD therapy (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.86–2.44; P=0.162). Consistently, shocks (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.91–4.60; P<0.001) and antitachycardia pacing (HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 0.96–5.14; P=0.063) for fast VA were both associated with increased mortality risk. Shocks and antitachycardia pacing for slow VA were not significantly associated with increased mortality risk (HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.52–3.92; P=0.489]; and HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.80–2.56; P=0.232], respectively).
Conclusions
In patients with mild heart failure receiving ICD for primary prevention, mortality is associated with the rate of underlying VA rather than the type of therapy. These findings suggest that fast VA is a marker for increased mortality rather than shock therapy directly contributing to increased risk.
Clinical Trial Registration
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00180271.
Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy, heart failure, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, mortality, shocks
Subject Categories: Electrophysiology, Arrhythmias
Clinical Perspective
What Is New?
Fast ventricular arrhythmias (>200 beats per minute) but not slow ventricular arrhythmias are associated with increased mortality in patients with mild heart failure and reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%).
Implanted cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks are not associated with increased mortality if rendered for slow ventricular arrhythmias and supraventricular tachycardia.
Fast ventricular arrhythmias are a marker of severe myocardial disease and probably represent advanced substrate (diffuse scar).
What Are the Clinical Implications?
These patients should be evaluated early for advanced therapies.
Introduction
Patients with heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of developing ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) that predispose to sudden death. Previous studies established that implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) are effective in reducing the risk of mortality and VAs, respectively, among patients with HF.1, 2
Later research, however, indicated that ICD shocks, whether appropriate or inappropriate, are associated with greater mortality risk in the long‐term.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Although there is evidence that shocks may induce myocardial damage, it remains unknown whether ICD shocks directly lead to mortality.12, 13, 14 High‐rate cutoff and delayed ICD programming strategies have been shown to reduce unnecessary shocks.15, 16, 17 In MADIT‐CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial—Reduction in Inappropriate Therapy), novel programming was associated with a trend toward decreased mortality, although other studies have suggested no mortality benefit.17, 18, 19
Using the MADIT‐CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study population of patients with mild HF,20 we therefore aimed to assess whether shock therapy itself is responsible for increased mortality or, alternatively, the underlying rate of VA (fast versus slow) is an indicator of disease severity and, thus, a marker of mortality risk. This aim seeks to further clarify findings observed in MADIT‐RIT, in which high‐rate programming and delayed programming strategies showed a mortality benefit (hazard ratio, 0.45 [P=0.01]; and hazard ratio, 0.56 [P=0.06], respectively) in a population of patients with mild to moderate HF.17
Methods
Study Population
The study population comprised the entire cohort of the original MADIT‐CRT. The protocol and results of the study have been detailed previously.20, 21 Briefly, 1820 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, QRS duration of at least 130 ms, and either ischemic cardiomyopathy and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I to II symptoms or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and NYHA class II were randomly assigned to CRT‐D or ICD treatment arms (both arms had a defibrillator). Patients from both treatment arms received optimal medical therapy for HF. Exclusion criteria included NYHA class III or IV symptoms, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, or myocardial infarction within 90 days before enrollment; second‐ or third‐degree heart block; chronic atrial fibrillation; and comorbidities, such as uremia (blood urea nitrogen >70 mg/dL or creatinine >3.0 mg/dL) and liver failure.
Because of the sensitive nature of the data collected for this study, requests to access the data set from qualified researchers trained in human subject confidentiality protocols may be sent to the Heart Research Follow‐Up Program at the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, NY).
Follow‐Up
MADIT‐CRT was conducted between December 22, 2004, and June 22, 2009. The institutional review board of each participating center approved the posttrial follow‐up. All patients provided written informed consent.
Device Programming and Interrogation
Device programming and interrogation were previously reported.21 Devices were programmed to monitor and deliver therapy. A 2‐zone configuration was used. The ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone was set at 180 beats per minute (bpm), whereas the ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone was set at 250 bpm. Detection was 2.5 seconds for the VT zone and 1.0 second for the VF zone. VT zone first therapy was burst‐type antitachycardia pacing (ATP) with 8 pulses at 88% of the measured cycle length and a 10‐ms decrement between bursts, then shock therapy. Second therapy was shock at the defibrillation threshold plus at least 10 J (if possible). The remaining therapies were maximal energy shocks.
Definitions and End Points
In this substudy, the original MADIT‐CRT study population was reclassified into 3 prespecified subgroups: no ICD therapy (no VT or VF), ICD therapy for VT <200 bpm, and ICD therapy for VT ≥200 bpm or VF. Those experiencing ICD therapy for VT <200 bpm were characterized as the slow VA group, whereas those experiencing ICD therapy for VT ≥200 bpm or VF were described as the fast VA group. The definition of fast VA was chosen on the basis of MADIT‐RIT, which suggested that treatment of VT <200 bpm may not be lifesaving.17
For the primary analysis, patients were divided into mutually exclusive groups by the rate of treated VA: slow VA or fast VA. For the secondary analysis, both the type of therapy and underlying VA rate (ATP for slow VA, shock for slow VA, ATP for fast VA, and shock for fast VA) were used. The reference group was always patients who had no ICD therapy. The heart rate at the beginning of each arrhythmic episode was used in the categorization of fast versus slow episodes.
If a patient received ≥2 therapies within a single episode, only the heart rate that initiated the cycle was captured, whereas additional heart rate data within the episode were not assessed by the interrogation committee. A total of 28 (9.7%) of the patients in MADIT‐CRT had multiple therapies within a single event (ie, ATP followed by shocks or multiple shocks); for this subset of patients, only the heart rate that initiated the episode was captured.
To allow categorization with multiple therapies for a patient within different episodes (in different time frames), the therapy groups were created to be mutually exclusive by prioritizing increasing risk among groups in the following rank order: ATP for slow VA, shock for slow VA, ATP for fast VA, and shock for fast VA. For example, if a subject had ICD therapies for both shock for slow VA and shock for fast VA, the higher‐risk event (ie, shock for fast VA) was considered for the analysis. Likewise, if a subject had therapies that included both ATP for slow VA but also shock for fast VA, the shock for fast VA was analyzed. Because of the time‐dependent nature of the covariates, patients developing different types of VA events during the study were moved to or kept in the group with the highest heart rate range. The end point of current the study was all‐cause mortality.
Statistical Analysis
Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between patients from the 3 groups (no ICD therapy [no VT or VF], ICD therapy for slow VA, and ICD therapy for fast VA), using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. For purposes of consistency, we used the Kruskal‐Wallis test for all continuous variables. Categorical data are presented as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables are presented as mean±SD.
Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess the association between treated VA and the risk of long‐term mortality in a time‐dependent manner. The Cox model was adjusted for relevant clinical covariates using best subset regression modeling (CRT‐D treatment, non–left bundle branch block configuration, CRT‐D treatment by non–left bundle branch block interaction, age ≥65 years, smoking, diabetes mellitus, glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, left atrial volume index, prior congestive HF hospitalization, prior hospitalization of any type, QRS duration, weight, time‐dependent inappropriate ATP, and time‐dependent inappropriate shock).
All statistical tests were 2 sided, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed with SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Results
During a median follow‐up of 4 years, there were 423 patients who experienced appropriate ICD therapy, with 163 receiving therapy for slow VA and 260 receiving therapy for fast VA. The distribution of the device therapies stratified by the rate of VA is shown in the Figure.
Figure 1.
The distribution of appropriate implanted cardioverter‐defibrillator–rendered therapy, as separated by the rate of ventricular arrhythmia, in MADIT‐CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy). The dark purple area represents overlap between antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and shocks. VF indicates ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
The baseline clinical characteristics categorized by the occurrence and the rate of VA are shown in Table 1. Patients experiencing ICD therapy for fast VA were younger, more often male, and more likely to be treated with digoxin. Those not receiving ICD therapy or who had ICD therapy for slow VA had smaller chamber volumes and a greater left ventricular ejection fraction.
Table 1.
Patient Baseline Clinical Characteristics Categorized by Shock Therapy
| Clinical Characteristics | No ICD Therapy (No VT or VF) (n=1367) | ICD Therapy for VT <200 bpm (n=163) | ICD Therapy for VT ≥200 bpm or VF (n=260) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at enrollment, y | 64.9±10.8 | 64.6±9.7 | 61.8±10.7a |
| Female sex | 27 | 20 | 14a |
| White race | 91 | 90 | 88 |
| SBP, mm Hg | 123.3±17.5 | 120.0±15.9 | 120.6±17.6a |
| Heart rate, bpm | 67.7±11.0 | 66.8±8.2 | 68.7±11.3 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 28.6±5.4 | 28.8±4.4 | 29.0±5.2 |
| Smoking | 10 | 20 | 15a |
| Creatinine, mg/dL | 1.17±0.37 | 1.16±0.30 | 1.14±0.26 |
| CRT‐D–assigned treatment arm | 62 | 58 | 54 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 31 | 29 | 26 |
| Hypertension | 65 | 59 | 62 |
| Ischemic cardiomyopathy | 54 | 61 | 57 |
| Prior MI | 41 | 53 | 52a |
| Survival time from MI to enrollment | 9.3±8.0 | 11.9±7.7 | 11.0±7.6a |
| Time from revascularization | 4.9±5.0 | 5.4±5.6 | 6.7±5.6a |
| Prior atrial arrhythmias | 11 | 12 | 15 |
| Prior ventricular arrhythmias | 5 | 13 | 15a |
| Aspirin | 65 | 71 | 59 |
| β Blockers | 94 | 93 | 91 |
| ACE inhibitor or ARB | 95 | 96 | 97 |
| Statin | 67 | 72 | 67 |
| Antiarrhythmic agent | 7 | 13 | 9 |
| Digitalis | 24 | 23 | 34a |
| Diuretic | 67 | 68 | 71 |
| PR interval, ms | 198±33 | 197±34 | 195±32 |
| QRS, ms | 158.7±19.3 | 156.4±20.4 | 156.2±21.7a |
| LBBB | 73 | 60 | 65a |
| IVCD | 15 | 23 | 23a |
| LVEF, % | 29.3±3.4 | 28.7±2.9 | 28.0±3.6a |
| LVEDV indexed by BSA | 121.8±27.1 | 125.6±27.1 | 130.6±33.8a |
| LVESV indexed by BSA | 86.6±21.9 | 89.9±21.2 | 94.6±27.5a |
| LAV indexed by BSA | 45.9±9.9 | 48.3±10.0 | 49.2±10.3a |
Numbers are mean±SD or percentage. ACE indicates angiotensin‐covering enzyme; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker; BMI, body mass index; bpm, beats per minute; BSA, body surface area; CRT‐D, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator; ICD, implanted cardioverter‐defibrillator; IVCD, intraventricular conduction disturbance; LAV, left atrial volume; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LVEDV, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end‐systolic volume; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
P<0.01.
In a multivariable model, we adjusted our analyses for variables that were found to be predictive of mortality. For example, we adjusted for CRT‐D treatment, left bundle branch block morphological features, and the interaction between the 2, since CRT‐D has been shown to reduce VAs in this population.22 Our results were consistent when we analyzed the CRT‐D group alone and the ICD group alone. The analyses indicate that patients treated for fast VA were at increased risk for mortality, relative to those not receiving ICD therapy (Table 2). On the other hand, patients who received ICD therapy for slow VA had similar mortality risk compared with patients who had no ICD therapy (Table 2).
Table 2.
Risk of Death by the Rate of Underlying VA (Slow and Fast)
| Time‐Dependent Appropriate Therapy | HRa | 95% CI | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| VT <200 bpm vs no therapy | 1.45 | 0.86–2.44 | 0.162 |
| VT ≥200 bpm or VF vs no therapy | 2.27 | 1.48–3.48 | <0.001 |
Bpm indicates beats per minute; HR, hazard ratio; VA, ventricular arrhythmia; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
The reference group is patients without implanted cardioverter‐defibrillator therapy (either appropriate or inappropriate). The model is adjusted to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) treatment, non–left bundle branch block (LBBB), CRT‐D treatment by non‐LBBB interaction, age ≥65 years, smoking, diabetes mellitus, glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, left atrial volume index, prior congestive heart failure hospitalization, prior hospitalization of any type, QRS duration, weight, time‐dependent inappropriate antitachycardia pacing, and time‐dependent inappropriate shock.
Consistently, when the patient groups were further stratified according to the type of the ICD‐delivered therapy, those who had ATP and those who had shock for fast VA were at significantly increased risk for long‐term mortality, whereas those who had ATP and those who had shock for slow VA did not differ from patients not receiving ICD therapy (Table 3).
Table 3.
Risk of Death by the Rate of Underlying VA (Slow and Fast) and the Type of Rendered Therapy
| Variable | HRa | 95% CI | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time‐dependent appropriate shock: VT <200 bpm | 1.43 | 0.52–3.92 | 0.489 |
| Time‐dependent appropriate shock: VT ≥200 bpm or VF | 2.96 | 1.91–4.60 | <0.001 |
| Time‐dependent appropriate ATP: VT <200 bpm | 1.43 | 0.80–2.56 | 0.232 |
| Time‐dependent appropriate ATP: VT ≥200 bpm or VF | 2.22 | 0.96–5.14 | 0.063 |
| No ICD therapy | Reference |
ATP indicates antitachycardia pacing; bpm, beats per minute; HR, hazard ratio; ICD, implanted cardioverter‐defibrillator; VA, ventricular arrhythmia; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
The reference group is patients without ICD therapy (either appropriate or inappropriate). The model is adjusted to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) treatment, non–left bundle branch block (LBBB), CRT‐D treatment by non‐LBBB interaction, age ≥65 years, smoking, diabetes mellitus, glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, left atrial volume index, prior congestive heart failure hospitalization, prior hospitalization of any type, QRS duration, weight, time‐dependent inappropriate ATP, and time‐dependent inappropriate shock.
Discussion
The main finding of our study is that among patients with mild HF, ICD‐rendered therapy, either ATP or shock, was independently associated with increased long‐term mortality only if the underlying VA was fast (VT ≥200 bpm or VF). Both shock therapy and ATP for slow VA (VT <200 bpm) were associated with the same risk as not having received any ICD‐rendered therapy. These findings suggest that the type of underlying VA is a marker for increased all‐cause mortality, rather than the ICD shocks or ATP directly contributing to mortality risk.
Although ICD implantation reduces the risk of death in patients with HF susceptible to life‐threatening VAs, both appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks have been associated with greater mortality during long‐term follow‐up.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 However, the debate about cause and effect has remained controversial. Electrical shock results in myocardial damage, which was hypothesized to be the source of excess mortality in this group.12, 13, 14 One school of thought is that ICD therapy induces cardiomyocyte dysfunction, as evidenced by subsequent derangements in cardiac biomarkers,23, 24 which, therefore, leads to cardiac dysfunction and delayed effects on mortality. However, the subsequent debate from these studies has been whether ICD shocks themselves lead to worsened prognosis or act only as a surrogate marker for advanced underlying myocardial disease.
Prior research has not conclusively answered this question. In a MADIT II substudy, Daubert et al reported that 101 of 719 patients with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction experienced an appropriate ICD shock, which was associated with a hazard for mortality of 3.36 (P<0.01).4 In the SCD‐HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial), an appropriate ICD shock occurred in 182 of 811 patients and was associated with a hazard for mortality of 5.68 (P<0.01).5 Longer follow‐up (45 versus 21 months) and the exclusion of NYHA class I patients in the SCD‐HeFT have been thought to account for the nearly 2‐fold increase in risk of mortality from appropriate shock when compared with MADIT II. The SCD‐HeFT investigators also protocolled a significantly higher ICD VT zone 1 threshold (>188 bpm) compared with MADIT II (171.9±14.5 bpm).5 Our results suggest that the higher programmed thresholds in the SCD‐HeFT may have identified faster rates of VAs at the time of appropriate ICD shock, and thus selected patients with advanced myocardial substrate disease who already carried a greater risk of mortality. Sweeney et al had shown that shock therapy may lead to greater mortality relative to ATP; however, they did not stratify the ICD therapies by the rate of the underlying VA.25
MADIT‐RIT too sought to address this issue, by assigning patients to different programming settings for the detection of arrhythmia and delivery of ICD therapy.17 In this trial, patients assigned to high‐rate programming had a decreased rate of first occurrence of ICD therapy (P<0.001) and improved mortality outcomes (P<0.01) over those with conventional programming settings. Patient assigned to a delayed programming regimen showed similar patterns as far as first occurrence of ICD therapy (P<0.001) and mortality (P=0.06). Notably, the MADIT‐RIT study population was composed almost exclusively of NYHA class II and III patients, and the follow‐up was only 1.4 years. Although there was an association between increased rates of ICD therapy and higher mortality in the conventional therapy group in this trial, the patient population differed from that of the present trial, which includes only patients with NYHA class I and II HF and collected data for a significantly longer period of follow‐up (2.4 years). Thus, our findings apply to patients with mild HF, and it may be possible that patients with more advanced disease, as in MADIT‐RIT, are more susceptible to biomechanical stresses associated with ICD therapy.
In the present study, we show that the risk for mortality is similar for ATP and shock if they were rendered for the same rate of VA in this patient population. These findings suggest that adverse outcomes associated with appropriate ICD shocks are a manifestation of the underlying VA burden. As has been well documented in the literature, the prevalence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a harbinger of underlying myocardial disease. Ischemic, toxic‐metabolic, and neurohormonal insults can lead to ventricular remodeling, on both gross (ie, echocardiographic) and microscopic (ie, increased cross‐bridge formation within ventricular sarcomeres) levels.26, 27, 28 Maladaptive remodeling has been shown to be a ripe substrate for life‐threatening arrhythmias.29, 30 Because of ICD's ability to detect abnormal and potentially lethal VAs, the discharge of ICD shock or ATP therapy acts as a clinical surrogate for the detection of these abnormal rhythms. In this way, appropriate ICD therapy can identify signs of a high‐risk myocardial substrate, and our research adds to this notion by introducing the nuance that ICD therapy rendered for fast VA but not for slow VA is a marker of a severe underlying substrate. ICD therapy for slow VAs does not carry a higher risk compared with the control group. These findings are consistent with previous reports that slow VAs are better tolerated than fast VAs. Previous reports have suggested patients with HF who have fast VT experience syncope and evidence of hemodynamic compromise at higher rates than slow VT.31 Indeed, larger size of the myocardial arrhythmogenic substrate may predispose to fast VT or VF.32
Given the relationship between inappropriate ICD therapy and mortality, we further adjusted our analyses for inappropriate ICD therapy. Inappropriate therapy in our analysis was not associated with increased mortality, an observation that is consistent with other studies. This further strengthens our conclusion that higher‐rate VAs are a marker for advanced underlying myocardial disease and increased mortality, whereas the type of therapy (ATP or shocks) is less likely to be a direct contributor to mortality risk. Despite the fact that shocks themselves are not directly associated with mortality in patients with mild HF, therapies for the management of slow VA should be programmed according to the findings of MADIT‐RIT, given the improvements seen in rates of both mortality and inappropriate therapy delivery.17
ICD shocks are concerning because of the pain involved and the association with psychological distress.33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Thus, the prognostic significance of the type of VA is highly important for patients. Specifically, it is imperative to explain to those who experienced a shock or ATP for slow VA that they are not at increased risk for mortality.
Study Limitations
As stated, MADIT‐CRT considered only patients with mild HF, limiting our ability to assess patients with more advanced HF. Data related to cardiac biomarkers were not collected, and we were thus unable to assess myocardial damage subsequent to ICD shock. Because a measurement of cardiac scar tissue was also not available, the extent of myocardial substrate disease could not be assessed, limiting our ability to distinguish between the potential causes of fast versus slow VAs. Furthermore, this is a retrospective, nonrandomized post hoc study. MADIT‐CRT was not randomized to assess the type of the ICD therapy on outcome. Although we used multivariate analysis with adjustments for many confounders, possible unmeasured confounders may have biased the results.
Conclusions
In conclusion, in patients with mild HF who receive ICD for primary prevention, mortality is associated with the rate of underlying VA rather than the device‐rendered therapy. This finding supports the hypothesis that shocks represent a marker of disease severity rather than a direct contributor to mortality in patients with HF.
Sources of Funding
MADIT‐CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) was sponsored by an unrestricted research grant from Boston Scientific Corporation to the University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, and to the Israeli Association for Cardiovascular Trials.
Disclosures
Dr Biton is a Mirowski‐Moss awardee. Drs Goldenberg, Kutyifa, and Zareba received grant support from Boston Scientific. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr Arthur Moss for his contributions to this article. He provided extensive guidance and support throughout this project.
(J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e010346 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010346.)
References
- 1. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Brown MW, Andrews ML. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877–883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ouellet G, Huang DT, Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Barsheshet A, McNitt S, Klein H, Zareba W, Goldenberg I. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on the risk of first and recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmic events in MADIT‐CRT. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1809–1816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Moss AJ, Greenberg H, Case RB, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Brown MW, Daubert JP, McNitt S, Andrews ML, Elkin AD. Long‐term clinical course of patients after termination of ventricular tachyarrhythmia by an implanted defibrillator. Circulation. 2004;110:3760–3765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Daubert JP, Zareba W, Cannom DS, McNitt S, Rosero SZ, Wang P, Schuger C, Steinberg JS, Higgins SL, Wilber DJ, Klein H, Andrews ML, Hall WJ, Moss AJ. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks in MADIT II: frequency, mechanisms, predictors, and survival impact. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1357–1365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Poole JE, Johnson GW, Hellkamp AS, Anderson J, Callans DJ, Raitt MH, Reddy RK, Marchlinski FE, Yee R, Guarnieri T, Talajic M, Wilber DJ, Fishbein DP, Packer DL, Mark DB, Lee KL, Bardy GH. Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1009–1017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bhavnani SP, Kluger J, Coleman CI, White CM, Guertin D, Shafi NA, Yarlagadda RK, Clyne CA. The prognostic impact of shocks for clinical and induced arrhythmias on morbidity and mortality among patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:755–760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Saxon LA, Hayes DL, Gilliam FR, Heidenreich PA, Day J, Seth M, Meyer TE, Jones PW, Boehmer JP. Long‐term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow‐up: the ALTITUDE survival study. Circulation. 2010;122:2359–2367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Dichtl W, Wolber T, Paoli U, Brullmann S, Stuhlinger M, Berger T, Spuller K, Strasak A, Pachinger O, Haegeli LM, Duru F, Hintringer F. Appropriate therapy but not inappropriate shocks predict survival in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:433–436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. van Rees JB, Borleffs CJ, de Bie MK, Stijnen T, van Erven L, Bax JJ, Schalij MJ. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:556–562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kleemann T, Hochadel M, Strauss M, Skarlos A, Seidl K, Zahn R. Comparison between atrial fibrillation‐triggered implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) shocks and inappropriate shocks caused by lead failure: different impact on prognosis in clinical practice. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:735–740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Sood N, Ruwald AC, Solomon S, Daubert JP, McNitt S, Polonsky B, Jons C, Clyne CA, Zareba W, Moss AJ. Association between myocardial substrate, implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks and mortality in MADIT‐CRT. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:106–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Hurst TM, Hinrichs M, Breidenbach C, Katz N, Waldecker B. Detection of myocardial injury during transvenous implantation of automatic cardioverter‐defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:402–408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Schluter T, Baum H, Plewan A, Neumeier D. Effects of implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation and shock application on biochemical markers of myocardial damage. Clin Chem. 2001;47:459–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tereshchenko LG, Faddis MN, Fetics BJ, Zelik KE, Efimov IR, Berger RD. Transient local injury current in right ventricular electrogram after implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shock predicts heart failure progression. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:822–828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Clementy N, Pierre B, Lallemand B, Marie O, Lemoine E, Cosnay P, Fauchier L, Babuty D. Long‐term follow‐up on high‐rate cut‐off programming for implantable cardioverter defibrillators in primary prevention patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Europace. 2012;14:968–974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Gasparini M, Proclemer A, Klersy C, Kloppe A, Lunati M, Ferrer JB, Hersi A, Gulaj M, Wijfels MC, Santi E, Manotta L, Arenal A. Effect of long‐detection interval vs standard‐detection interval for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309:1903–1911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Moss AJ, Schuger C, Beck CA, Brown MW, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Estes NA III, Greenberg H, Hall WJ, Huang DT, Kautzner J, Klein H, McNitt S, Olshansky B, Shoda M, Wilber D, Zareba W; MADIT‐RIT Trial Investigators . Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2275–2283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ha AH, Ham I, Nair GM, Connolly SJ, Dorian P, Morillo CA, Healey JS. Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shock prevention does not reduce mortality: a systemic review. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:2068–2074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Tan VH, Wilton SB, Kuriachan V, Sumner GL, Exner DV. Impact of programming strategies aimed at reducing nonessential implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies on mortality: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:164–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Klein H, Brown MW, Daubert JP, Estes NA III, Foster E, Greenberg H, Higgins SL, Pfeffer MA, Solomon SD, Wilber D, Zareba W; MADIT‐CRT Trial Investigators . Cardiac‐resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart‐failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1329–1338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Moss AJ, Brown MW, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Estes M, Foster E, Greenberg HM, Hall WJ, Higgins SL, Klein H, Pfeffer M, Wilber D, Zareba W. Multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial‐cardiac resynchronization therapy (MADIT‐CRT): design and clinical protocol. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2005;10:34–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kutyifa V, Daubert JP, Schuger C, Goldenberg I, Klein H, Aktas MK, McNitt S, Stockburger M, Merkely B, Zareba W, Moss AJ. Novel ICD programming and inappropriate ICD therapy in CRT‐D versus ICD patients: a MADIT‐RIT sub‐study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9:e001965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Francis CK, Kuo YH, Azzam I, Selim S, Patel N, Beri R, Goldman D, Girgis I, Daniels S. Brain natriuretic peptide and biomarkers of myocardial ischemia increase after defibrillation threshold testing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35:314–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. D'Onofrio A, Russo V, Bianchi V, Cavallaro C, Leonardi S, De Vivo S, Vecchione F, Rago A, Ammendola E, Tavoletta V, Atripaldi L, Mocavero PE, Nigro G. Effects of defibrillation shock in patients implanted with a subcutaneous defibrillator: a biomarker study. Europace. 2018;20:f233–f239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Sweeney MO, Sherfesee L, DeGroot PJ, Wathen MS, Wilkoff BL. Differences in effects of electrical therapy type for ventricular arrhythmias on mortality in implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator patients. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:353–360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Meng L, Shivkumar K, Ajijola O. Autonomic regulation and ventricular arrhythmias. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2018;20:38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Sutton MG, Sharpe N. Left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction: pathophysiology and therapy. Circulation. 2000;101:2981–2988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Guzzo‐Merello G, Dominguez F, Gonzalez‐Lopez E, Cobo‐Marcos M, Gomez‐Bueno M, Fernandez‐Lozano I, Millan I, Segovia J, Alonso‐Pulpon L, Garcia‐Pavia P. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias in alcoholic cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol. 2015;199:99–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Biton Y, Goldenberg I, Kutyifa V, Baman JR, Solomon S, Moss AJ, Szepietowska B, McNitt S, Polonsky B, Zareba W, Barsheshet A. Relative wall thickness and the risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:303–312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Nattel S, Khairy P, Schram G. Arrhythmogenic ionic remodeling: adaptive responses with maladaptive consequences. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2001;11:295–301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Ruwald MH, Okumura K, Kimura T, Aonuma K, Shoda M, Kutyifa V, Ruwald AC, McNitt S, Zareba W, Moss AJ. Syncope in high‐risk cardiomyopathy patients with implantable defibrillators: frequency, risk factors, mechanisms, and association with mortality: results from the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial‐reduce inappropriate therapy (MADIT‐RIT) study. Circulation. 2014;129:545–552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Antz M, Berodt K, Bansch D, Ernst S, Chun KJ, Satomi K, Schmidt B, Boczor S, Ouyang F, Kuck KH. Catheter‐ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with coronary artery disease: influence of the endocardial substrate size on clinical outcome. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97:110–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Carroll DL, Hamilton GA. Quality of life in implanted cardioverter defibrillator recipients: the impact of a device shock. Heart Lung. 2005;34:169–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Dougherty CM. Psychological reactions and family adjustment in shock versus no shock groups after implantation of internal cardioverter defibrillator. Heart Lung. 1995;24:281–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Hall WJ, McNitt S, Zareba W, Andrews ML, Cannom DS. Causes and consequences of heart failure after prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial II. Circulation. 2006;113:2810–2817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Kamphuis HC, de Leeuw JR, Derksen R, Hauer RN, Winnubst JA. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: quality of life in recipients with and without ICD shock delivery: a prospective study. Europace. 2003;5:381–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Sears SF, Rosman L, Sasaki S, Kondo Y, Sterns LD, Schloss EJ, Kurita T, Meijer A, Raijmakers J, Gerritse B, Auricchio A. Defibrillator shocks and their effect on objective and subjective patient outcomes: results of the PainFree SST clinical trial. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15:734–740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]