| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2001;103:244.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
"Stable" Ventricular Tachycardia Is Not a Benign Rhythm
Insights From the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Registry
From the Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Ore (M.H.R.); University of Washington, Seattle (E.G.R., S.E.L., A.P.H.); University of Alabama, Birmingham (A.E.E.); Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland (J.H.M.); University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville (P.M.); St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY (J.S.S.); and North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY (R.L.J.).
Correspondence to AVID Clinical Trial Center, 1107 NE 45th St, Room 505, Seattle, WA 98105. E-mail avidctc{at}u.washington.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be unstable, can be associated with serious symptoms, or can be stable and relatively free of symptoms. Patients with unstable VT are at high risk for sudden death and are best treated with an implantable defibrillator. The prognosis of patients with stable VT is controversial, and it is unknown whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy is beneficial.
Methods and Results—Screening for the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial identified patients with both stable and unstable VT. Both groups were included in a registry, and their clinical characteristics and discharge treatments were recorded. Mortality data were obtained through the National Death Index. The mortality in 440 patients with stable VT tended to be greater than that observed in 1029 patients presenting with unstable VT (33.6% versus 27.6% at 3 years; relative risk [RR]=1.22; P=0.07). After adjustment for baseline and treatment differences, the RR was little changed (RR=1.25, P=0.06).
Conclusions—Sustained VT without serious symptoms or hemodynamic compromise is associated with a high mortality rate and may be a marker for a substrate capable of producing a more malignant arrhythmia. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may be indicated in patients presenting with stable VT.
Key Words: death, sudden • tachycardia • cardioversion • defibrillation
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, patients presenting with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT) were shown to have significantly reduced mortality when treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) compared with amiodarone.1 To be eligible for randomization in the AVID trial, patients with VT were required to have syncope as a result of VT, a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF)
0.40, and angina or symptoms of significant hemodynamic
compromise during VT. Patients with stable VT that did not cause
hemodynamic compromise or angina were not eligible for randomization
regardless of their EF. The decision not to enroll stable VT patients
was made because the risk of arrhythmic death in this group was thought
to be too low to contribute to the assessment of aggressive
antiarrhythmic therapy. A review of studies that have examined the risk of sudden death in patients with stable VT reveals conflicting results. Some suggest little risk of sudden death.2 Others suggest a risk similar to that for patients with more severe symptoms during VT.3 4 Although patients with stable VT were not enrolled in AVID, they were included in a registry of patients screened for the study. In this article, the mortality of patients with stable VT enrolled in the AVID Registry is compared with that of patients with unstable VT who were either enrolled in the AVID main trial or included in the registry.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
During the process of screening patients for entry into the AVID trial, the 56 clinical centers in the United States and Canada evaluated all patients presenting to their institutions with sustained VT or VF over the 4-year period from June 1, 1993, to April 7, 1997. Details of the creation and management of the AVID Registry, which includes 4595 patients, have been published.5 The registry includes patients with rhythms eligible for trial entry, as well as patients who presented with arrhythmias not eligible for entry into the trial, including unstable sustained VT and an EF >0.40, stable sustained VT, VT/VF resulting from a transient or reversible cause, and out-of-hospital unexplained syncope in patients with structural heart disease and sustained VT induced on electrophysiological study. Patients were included in the registry regardless of whether they were eligible for or randomized in the AVID main trial. Patients who had an arrhythmia within 5 days of a myocardial infarction, cardiac surgery, or coronary intervention were excluded, as were patients with class IV heart failure or those who were on a heart transplant list, had a prior ICD implant or attempted implant, or had a life expectancy of <1 year. At the time of screening, demographic and baseline data were obtained. At hospital discharge, procedures done after the index event, discharge medications, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded. Mortality data were obtained from the National Death Index.
Stable VT was defined as electrocardiographically documented sustained VT not associated with significant hemodynamic compromise or angina. Of the patients in the total AVID Registry, 12% (n=536) had stable VT, and 25% (1167) had unstable VT (330 of the 1167 were randomized in the main trial). Patients registered at sites that did not participate in long-term follow-up were excluded (7 with stable VT, 40 with unstable VT), as were early registrants for whom initial hospital survival data were not collected (29 with stable VT, 45 with unstable VT). The population was further restricted by elimination of those patients who did not survive the baseline hospitalization (10 with stable VT, 6 with unstable VT) and who had no identifiable heart disease (50 with stable VT, 47 with unstable VT).
Statistical Analysis
Baseline comparisons were evaluated with the use of
the 
2 or Student’s
t test when appropriate.
Because data were obtained both at screening and at hospital discharge,
baseline (at the time of the index event) clinical variables were given
a first level of entry, and therapies and procedures during the index
hospitalization (recorded at the time of discharge) were given a second
level. Stepwise logistic regression
(P0.05 to enter and
P>0.1 to remove) was used to
examine the multivariate relationship of covariate differences between
patients presenting with stable VT and unstable VT. Continuous factors
were not discretized in the models but were discretized for
presentation in tables. Model construction followed the pattern of (1)
stepwise selection among baseline factors, (2) stepwise selection from
second-order interactions of factors selected in step 1, (3) stepwise
selection among discharge factors, and (4) stepwise selection among
second-order interactions selected in step 3 with factors selected in
step 1 and then with factors chosen in step 3. Survival was measured
from index event (even though only those patients discharged alive are
included because hospital discharge date was not recorded on early
forms) until death or until the National Death Index censor date of
December 31, 1997. The univariate effect of baseline factors on
mortality in the entire population of patients presenting with either
stable or unstable VT was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and tested
with the log-rank statistic. Multivariate relationships were evaluated
via a stepwise Cox proportional-hazards model with the same model
construction as above. An unadjusted comparison of mortality between
unstable and stable VT used Kaplan-Meier estimation and the log-rank
statistic. An adjusted analysis was made with a Cox
proportional-hazards model, adjusting for significant (multivariate)
predictors of death during follow-up and permitting adjustment for any
significant interactions between predictors and type of VT on outcome.
Finally, group discriminators were allowed to enter the model by
including the discriminator and its interaction with type of
VT.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Baseline Characteristics
The study population consisted of 440 patients with stable VT and 1029 patients with unstable VT. Of the 1029 patients with unstable VT, 330 had therapy determined by randomization in the AVID trial: 52% received an ICD, 47% amiodarone, and 2% sotalol. Therapy for the remaining 699 patients with unstable VT and the 440 patients with stable VT was determined at the discretion of the attending physician. Table 1
compares the baseline demographic and medical
history data for the stable and unstable VT groups. There were
significant differences between the 2 groups. Patients with stable VT
had a higher mean EF, were less likely to have a history of congestive
heart failure and smoking, and were more likely to have a history of
VT, to be taking an antiarrhythmic drug at the time of their index
arrhythmia, and to have their index event occur in the hospital. In
addition, there were significant differences in the type of health
insurance between the 2 groups. On multivariate analysis, all the above
differences remained significant except for the differences in the
history of VT before the index event, history of smoking, and health
insurance, whereas the excess of patients with a history of neoplasm in
patients presenting with unstable VT became significant. Significant
multivariate interactions were observed between a history of neoplasm
and EF and between prior use of antiarrhythmic medication and index
event location.
|
Therapy
Table 2 compares the discharge therapies received by the 2
groups. Compared with patients presenting with unstable VT, patients
with stable VT were less likely to receive an ICD, were more likely to
receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy without an ICD, were more likely to
receive no specific antiarrhythmic therapy (no antiarrhythmic drug or
ICD), and were more likely to have catheter ablation for VT. In
addition, patients with stable VT were less likely to receive
digitalis, ACE inhibitors, nitrates, diuretics, and warfarin. There was
no difference in the rate of pacemaker implantation, revascularization,
or ß-blocker therapy between the 2 groups. Stable VT patients had
lower heart rates and higher diastolic and systolic blood pressures at
discharge. On multivariate analysis, unstable VT patients were more
likely to undergo ICD and warfarin therapy, were less likely to undergo
arrhythmia surgery or ablation, were less likely to have valve surgery,
and had lower systolic blood pressure at
discharge.
|
Mortality
Figure 1 displays the unadjusted mortality in patients with
stable and unstable VT. The stable VT patients tended to have a higher
mortality (33.6% versus 27.6%) at 3 years, with a relative risk (RR)
of death of 1.22 (P=0.07).
After adjustment for predictors of mortality
(Figure 2), the trend toward increased mortality in stable VT
persisted (RR=1.25; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.59;
P=0.06).
Tables 3 and 4 show the
association between baseline and discharge variables and mortality at 3
years when the stable and unstable VT patients are combined.
Multivariate predictors of mortality in the combined VT population
included older age, antiarrhythmic drug use before the index event,
lower EF, history of congestive heart failure, no history of myocardial
infarction, absence of nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, index event
in the hospital, no CABG surgery during the index hospitalization, no
ICD implant, digoxin and/or diuretic therapy at discharge, no
ß-blocker prescribed at discharge, and higher heart rate and/or lower
diastolic blood pressure at discharge. There were significant
interactions between prior antiarrhythmic drug use and CABG surgery,
location of event and digoxin therapy, ICD therapy and digoxin therapy,
and ICD therapy and heart rate. There was also a significant
interaction between ß-blocker therapy and type of VT on mortality
(P=0.04), so the increased risk
of stable versus unstable VT appears to be restricted to patients
discharged on ß-blocker therapy.
Figure 3 shows that the unadjusted mortality was essentially
identical for stable VT and unstable VT patients who were not treated
with ß-blockers and that treatment with ß-blockers was associated
with a decreased mortality in unstable but not stable VT patients. To
further investigate this finding, the clinical variables that were
significant multivariate predictors of mortality were compared as a
function of whether patients were taking a ß-blocker at the time of
discharge. Overall, patients taking ß-blockers had a higher EF, were
less likely to have a history of congestive heart failure, were more
likely have an ICD, and were less likely to be discharged on digoxin or
diuretic. Despite all these associations that would suggest lower
mortality through other mechanisms, ß-blocker use was an independent
predictor of lower mortality on multivariate analysis. When patients
taking ß-blockers were examined, those who had unstable VT as their
index arrhythmia and appeared to benefit more from ß-blocker therapy
as a group were more likely to have had CABG surgery or angioplasty
after their index arrhythmia, had a lower EF, were more likely to have
a history of congestive heart failure, were more likely to have an ICD,
and were more likely to be discharged on a diuretic. Correcting for all
these clinical variables did not eliminate the finding of improved
survival, with ß-blocker use being restricted to patients who
presented with unstable VT. In contrast to the result with
ß-blockers,
Figure 4 shows that the improved survival associated with a
higher EF occurred in patients who presented with stable and unstable
VT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This retrospective, nonrandomized, observational analysis suggests that the absence of severe symptoms with sustained VT does not predict a benign prognosis. In contrast, we observed a trend toward increased mortality in patients with underlying heart disease who presented with stable compared with unstable VT. This trend in mortality persisted after adjustment for baseline differences between the 2 populations and the predictors of mortality in the combined population.
It is difficult to accept the proposition that patients with stable VT who present with less severe symptoms and in our study had less severe underlying heart disease have a worse prognosis than patients who present with unstable VT. In fact, the trend toward higher mortality in patients presenting with stable VT did not reach statistical significance. However, these results suggest that stable VT is not a low-risk arrhythmia and that sudden death may be a prominent cause of mortality in this population. It appears that there is a relatively high risk of death associated with having VT (independent of symptoms during VT) that overshadows differences in mortality attributable to factors that determine the severity of symptoms during VT.
In support of the concept that presenting symptoms may not be an important predictor of prognosis is the work of Olson et al.3 They analyzed the predictors of sudden death in 122 patients at their institution who were treated with amiodarone for sustained VT. Over a median of 19.5 months of follow-up, sudden death mortality was virtually identical in patients with tolerated compared with nontolerated VT (25% versus 24%). The single best predictor of mortality was EF. Our data show that independent of presenting symptoms, measures of left ventricular dysfunction, age, type of underlying heart disease, and other factors correlate with increased mortality. Many of these parameters have been identified as risk factors for death in patient populations accepted to be at high risk for sudden death.6 7 8 Antiarrhythmic drug therapy at the time of presentation was seen more commonly in patients with stable VT. Such a characteristic identifies a patient as resistant to drug therapy and was an independent risk factor for death in our population. It is possible that antiarrhythmic use at the time of presentation may have slowed the VT and caused some patients who would have presented as unstable VT to present as stable VT. This finding and the observed interaction between antiarrhythmic drug use and the index event occurring in the hospital might also have been due to an excess of proarrhythmia in the stable VT population. However, correcting for antiarrhythmic use at the time of the index arrhythmia and for the interaction with the location of the index event did not eliminate the trend toward increased mortality in the patients presenting with stable VT. It is interesting to note that the trend toward increased risk in stable VT was for the most part restricted to patients taking ß-blockers. Our results cannot establish a causal relationship between ß-blocker therapy and survival or suggest a possible mechanism.
If patients with stable VT are in fact at high risk for sudden arrhythmic death, then presumably it is not a recurrence of the presenting stable VT that leads to sudden death but a more malignant arrhythmia. A slow or well-tolerated VT may be a marker for an increased risk of a faster, poorly tolerated arrhythmia. Multiple VTs (including very rapid, poorly tolerated VTs) are commonly induced during electrophysiological testing in patients with stable VT.9 Bocker et al4 examined ICD therapies in 50 patients with an ICD implanted for stable VT who were followed up for 17±12 months. Of these patients, 22% received ICD therapy for arrhythmias that were judged to be life threatening (heart rate >250 bpm). Thus, the symptoms present on presentation with VT may correlate poorly with the subsequent risk of arrhythmic death. Stable VT may simply be a marker for a substrate capable of producing a more malignant VT or spontaneous VF.
In opposition to the suggestion that sudden death is common in patients presenting with stable VT are the observations of Sarter et al,2 who retrospectively analyzed the course of 124 patients with coronary artery disease followed up for 36 months after presenting with stable VT. They found a high total mortality (36%) but a relatively low incidence of sudden death (2.4%/y). There are reasons to believe that the results of Sarter et al do not accurately reflect the natural history of patients with stable VT. First, there are numerous difficulties in determining the true cause of death in retrospective studies.10 Second, 37% of the patients in the study were treated by endocardial resection with a 20% operative mortality. This aggressive intervention may have improved the outcome of those patients who survived surgery and given an inaccurate estimate of the risk of sudden death.
Study Limitations
Important limitations of this study include (1)
the inherent difficulties in correcting for the clinical differences
between the patients with stable and unstable VT at baseline, (2) the
fact that therapy was not randomly assigned within or between the 2
groups, and (3) a lack of information on additional therapy after
discharge from the hospital and on the causes of the observed
mortality. Because therapy was not randomly assigned and because we do
not know how patient therapy may have changed after discharge, we
cannot make any assessment of the impact different therapies may have
had on mortality. The trend toward increased mortality in patients
presenting with stable VT may be due to important unrecorded
differences in therapy after the index hospitalization. It is possible
that patients with unstable VT were followed up more closely or were
more likely to receive other beneficial interventions, such as a late
ICD implant after the initial hospitalization. Such differences, for
which we are unable to correct, would not be surprising given the
widely held belief that patients presenting with unstable VT have a
worse prognosis than those who present with stable
VT.
Conclusions
This retrospective, nonrandomized, observational
analysis suggests that patients presenting with stable, hemodynamically
well-tolerated VT and underlying heart disease have at least as high a
total mortality rate as patients presenting with VT and more severe
symptoms. Stable VT may be a marker for a cardiac electrophysiological
substrate capable of producing arrhythmias that are more malignant. ICD
therapy has been shown to decrease mortality in patients with unstable
VT, and given these results, ICD therapy may decrease mortality in
patients presenting with stable VT. Studies of ICD therapy in patients
with stable VT are
warranted.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by contract N01-HC-25117 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.
Received April 17, 2000; revision received August 24, 2000; accepted August 25, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. AVID Investigators. A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1576–1583.
2. Sarter BH, Finkle JK, Gerszten RE, et al. What is the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients presenting with hemodynamically stable sustained ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:122–129.[Abstract]
3. Olson PJ, Woelfel A, Simpson RJ, et al. Stratification of sudden death risk in patients receiving long-term amiodarone treatment for sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:823–826.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Bocker D, Block M,
Isbruch F, et al. Benefits of treatment with implantable
cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with stable ventricular
tachycardia without cardiac arrest. Br
Heart J. 1995;73:158–163.
5.
Anderson JL,
Hallstrom AP, Epstein AE, et al. Design and results of the
Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID)
Registry. Circulation. 1999;99:1692–1699.
6. Swerdlow CD, Winkle RA, Mason JW. Determinants of survival in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:1436–1442.[Abstract]
7. Fogoros RN, Elson JJ, Bonnett CA, et al. Long-term outcome of survivors of cardiac arrest whose therapy is guided by electrophysiologic testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:780–788.[Abstract]
8.
Caruso AC, Marcus
FI, Hahn EA, et al. Predictors of arrhythmic death and cardiac arrest
in the ESVEM trial.
Circulation. 1997;96:1888–1892.
9.
Stevenson WG,
Friedman PL, Kocovic D, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of
ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction.
Circulation. 1998;98:308–314.
10.
Pratt CM,
Greenway PS, Schoenfeld MH, et al. Exploration of the precision of
classifying sudden cardiac death: implications for the interpretation
of clinical trials.
Circulation. 1996;93:519–524.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. Vassallo and R. G. Trohman Prescribing Amiodarone: An Evidence-Based Review of Clinical Indications JAMA, September 19, 2007; 298(11): 1312 - 1322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Callans Patients With Hemodynamically Tolerated Ventricular Tachycardia Require Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Circulation, September 4, 2007; 116(10): 1196 - 1203. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Almendral and M. E. Josephson All Patients With Hemodynamically Tolerated Postinfarction Ventricular Tachycardia Do Not Require an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Circulation, September 4, 2007; 116(10): 1204 - 1212. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. J. Bunch, S. C. Hammill, and R. D. White Outcomes After Ventricular Fibrillation Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Expanding the Chain of Survival Mayo Clin. Proc., June 1, 2005; 80(6): 774 - 782. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.u. Schlapfer, F. Rapp, L. Kappenberger, and M. Fromer Electrophysiologically guided amiodarone therapy versus the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after myocardial infarction: Results of long-term follow-up J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 5, 2002; 39(11): 1813 - 1819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Della Bella, R. De Ponti, J.A.S. Uriarte, C. Tondo, C. Klersy, C. Carbucicchio, C. Storti, S. Riva, and M. Longobardi Catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs for haemodynamically tolerated post-infarction ventricular tachycardia. Long-term outcome in relation to acute electrophysiological findings Eur. Heart J., March 1, 2002; 23(5): 414 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.G. Priori, E. Aliot, C. Blomstrom-Lundqvist, L. Bossaert, G. Breithardt, P. Brugada, A.J. Camm, R. Cappato, S.M. Cobbe, C. Di Mario, et al. Task Force on Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2001; 22(16): 1374 - 1450. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 'Stable' Ventricular Tachycardia Is Not Benign Journal Watch Cardiology, April 6, 2001; 2001(406): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||