Effect of coronary revascularization on long‐term clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and recurrent ventricular arrhythmia. Issue 7 (4th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elsokkari, Ihab; Parkash, Ratika; Gray, Chris J.; Gardner, Martin J.; AbdelWahab, Amir M.; Doucette, Steve; Tang, Anthony S.; Wells, George A.; Stevenson, William G.; Sapp, John L.
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 41:Issue 7(2018)
• Page Start: 775
• Page End: 779
• Publication Date: 2018-06-04
• Subjects: coronary revascularization -- implantable cardiac defibrillator -- ischemic cardiomyopathy -- ventricular arrhythmia; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13375
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) postmyocardial infarction (MI) are a higher risk group with significant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of prior coronary revascularization on clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. Methods: The VANISH trial randomized 259 patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug‐refractory VT to receive escalated medical therapy or catheter ablation. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether patients have undergone prior revascularization procedures. The primary outcome was a composite of death, appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) shock, or VT storm. The secondary outcomes included elements of the primary outcome, hospitalization, and any ventricular arrhythmia. Results: 190 patients (73%) had prior coronary revascularization. Revascularization group had more men (97% vs 83%; P = 0.0003) and patients in that group were older (mean age 69.3 ± 7.6 vs 66.7 ± 9.2; P = 0.04), had more renal insufficiency (22.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.01), and were more likely to have an implanted cardiac resynchronization device (23% vs 10%, P = 0.03) as compared with the nonrevascularized patients. There were no significant differences in baseline medication use. There was a trend toward fewer hospitalizations in the revascularization group (64% vs 77%; P = 0.07); there were no differences in the individual outcomes of mortality, VT storm, ICD shocks, recurrent MI, or cardiac failure. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with an ischemic cause for VT, a history of prior coronary revascularization was not associated with a reduction in ventricular arrhythmia or mortality.