doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.753871
(Circulation. 2008;117:456-457.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
Venturing Into the Storm
From the QEII Health Sciences Center, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Correspondence to Dr John Lewis Sapp, QEII Health Sciences Center, Room 2501F, Halifax Infirmary Site, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 3A7. E-mail john.sapp{at}cdha.nshealth.ca
Key Words: Editorials • ablation • arrhythmia • tachyarrhythmia • ventricles
Estimates of the incidence of electrical storm (ES) range from 4% over 20.6 months of follow-up in patients with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs)1 to 20% over 31 months of follow-up in a population with secondary prophylactic ICDs.2 Although smaller observational series have not identified a clear mortality risk associated with ES,3,4 larger and more recent series have suggested a large and significant association between repeated ventricular arrhythmic events and death, both sudden and nonsudden.5–8 It is unclear whether this adverse outcome is a result of repeated ICD shocks or whether recurrent arrhythmias are a marker of sicker hearts that are destined to do poorly. Indeed, the mode of death after ES frequently is related to heart failure. Uncertainty has thus remained about whether interventions for ES can influence mortality beyond the acute period.9 In this issue of Circulation, Carbucicchio and colleagues10 describe a large series of patients who underwent catheter ablation after presenting acutely with ES refractory to antiarrhythmic medications.
Article p 462
Ninety-five patients experiencing at least 3 ICD shocks within 24 hours and a mean of 14±8 ICD shocks per day over 3.9±3.6 days despite pharmacological therapy with β-blockade in 97% and amiodarone 350±120 mg/d for 
5 months in 94% were included. Eighteen percent of patients had undergone prior catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) 16±6 months previously. Patients were brought urgently or as an emergency (within 24 hours for 50 patients [53%] who experienced marked hypotension and required intravenous inotropes) for catheter ablation with a mapping system and irrigated radiofrequency application using common procedural strategies: activation and entrainment of mappable VT and substrate mapping with pace mapping and/or brief entrainment of unmappable VT. In 10 patients, the procedure was performed with cardiopulmonary support because of incessant nontolerated VT. Acute single procedure success (noninducibility of any VT) was achieved in 62 patients (65%), and clinical VT was eradicated in a further 19 patients (20%). In-hospital recurrences led to a second procedure in 12 and a third procedure in 6 patients. Ten patients underwent a repeat procedure that had an epicardial approach. After the final procedure, 68 of 95 patients (72%) had no VT inducible, 17 of 95 (18%) had only nonclinical VT inducible, and 10 of 95 (10%) had 1 clinical VTs that could not be suppressed.
Over a follow-up of 22±13 months, failure to abolish 1 clinical VTs (10 patients) was associated with recurrent VT in all patients, recurrent ES in 80%, and death caused by intractable arrhythmia in 40% (deaths occurred within 3 months). Abolition of all inducible VTs was associated with recurrent VT in only 16%, with no recurrence of ES. Patients who had clinical VT rendered noninducible but still had nonclinical VTs inducible had a higher VT recurrence rate (65%) but no recurrent ES.
Patients with ES are a heterogeneous group, with estimates of 1-year survival from case series varying from 
5% to 35%.1,2,5 The patients reported in the article by Carbucicchio et al10 were very ill, with more than half the patients requiring inotropic support and almost all of the patients suffering ES despite long-term amiodarone therapy. In this context, the reported survival was remarkable, particularly in the group that had successful ablation. The poor outcomes in the group with unsuccessful ablation may be related to greater severity of cardiac disease, or it is possible that the clinical outcome in this group suggests the natural history of the larger group had they been treated purely pharmacologically. The difference in clinical outcome among the groups with varying procedural outcomes certainly raises the possibility that the latter is the case and supports an aggressive strategy for controlling ES.
Emergency catheter ablations make up a relatively small proportion of procedures in most cardiac electrophysiology laboratories. Recent studies, however, have suggested a role for rapid and early intervention in patients with ES.11,12 It may be that we should expect a change in case mix and procedural acuity if this strategy can be shown to be beneficial. This study cannot answer the question of whether catheter ablation is appropriate for all patients presenting with ES, but it makes the case for early ablation of patients with ES despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy and supports the need for studies to help define the role of catheter ablation in this high-risk group.
 |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
Dr Sapp is a consultant for Biosense-Webster; has received speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic, Biosense-Webster, and St Jude Medical; and has received research funding from Biosense-Webster and Medtronic.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
1. Sesselberg HW, Moss AJ, McNitt S, Zareba W, Daubert JP, Andrews ML, Hall WJ, McClinitic B, Huang DT. Ventricular arrhythmia storms in postinfarction patients with implantable defibrillators for primary prevention indications: a MADIT-II substudy. Heart Rhythm. 2007; 4: 1395–1402.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Exner DV, Pinski SL, Wyse DG, Renfroe EG, Follmann D, Gold M, Beckman KJ, Coromilas J, Lancaster S, Hallstrom AP. Electrical storm presages nonsudden death: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial. Circulation. 2001; 103: 2066–2071.
3. Credner SC, Klingenheben T, Mauss O, Sticherling C, Hohnloser SH. Electrical storm in patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: incidence, management and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 32: 1909–1915.
4. Greene M, Newman D, Geist M, Paquette M, Heng D, Dorian P. Is electrical storm in ICD patients the sign of a dying heart? Outcome of patients with clusters of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Europace. 2000; 2: 263–269.
5. Verma A, Kilicaslan F, Marrouche NF, Minor S, Khan M, Wazni O, Burkhardt JD, Belden WA, Cummings JE, Abdul-Karim A, Saliba W, Schweikert RA, Tchou PJ, Martin DO, Natale A. Prevalence, predictors, and mortality significance of the causative arrhythmia in patients with electrical storm. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004; 15: 1265–1270.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Villacastin J, Almendral J, Arenal A, Albertos J, Ormaetxe J, Peinado R, Bueno H, Merino JL, Pastor A, Medina O, Tercedor L, Jimenez F, Delcan JL. Incidence and clinical significance of multiple consecutive, appropriate, high-energy discharges in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators. Circulation. 1996; 93: 753–762.
7. Gatzoulis KA, Andrikopoulos GK, Apostolopoulos T, Sotiropoulos E, Zervopoulos G, Antoniou J, Brili S, Stefanadis CI. Electrical storm is an independent predictor of adverse long-term outcome in the era of implantable defibrillator therapy. Europace. 2005; 7: 184–192.
8. Hohnloser SH, Al-Khalidi HR, Pratt CM, Brum JM, Tatla DS, Tchou P, Dorian P. Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27: 3027–3032.
9. Nademanee K, Taylor R, Bailey WE, Rieders DE, Kosar EM. Treating electrical storm: sympathetic blockade versus advanced cardiac life support-guided therapy. Circulation. 2000; 102: 742–747.
10. Carbucicchio C, Santamaria M, Trevisi N, Maccabelli G, Giraldi F, Fassini G, Riva S, Moltrasio M, Cireddu M, Veglia F, Della Bella P. Catheter ablation for the treatment of electrical storm in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: short- and long-term outcomes in a prospective single-center study. Circulation. 2008; 117: 462–469.
11. Bansch D, Oyang F, Antz M, Arentz T, Weber R, Val-Mejias JE, Ernst S, Kuck KH. Successful catheter ablation of electrical storm after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2003; 108: 3011–3016.
12. Haissaguerre M, Shoda M, Jais P, Nogami A, Shah DC, Kautzner J, Arentz T, Kalushe D, Lamaison D, Griffith M, Cruz F, de Paola A, Gaita F, Hocini M, Garrigue S, Macle L, Weerasooriya R, Clementy J. Mapping and ablation of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. Circulation. 2002; 106: 962–967.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  K.-H. Kuck Should Catheter Ablation be the Preferred Therapy for Reducing ICD Shocks?: Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With an Implantable Defibrillator Warrants Catheter Ablation Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, December 1, 2009; 2(6): 713 - 720. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||