Prospective clinical evaluation and follow-up of a cohort of consecutive VT/VF patients, using a staged-care protocol, including coronary arteriography, programmed electrical stimulation and cardiac surgery

Abstract

The prospective evaluation and follow-up of 39 consecutive subjects with VT/VF, 6 of whom, with cardiac arrest (CA), are reported. Patients were enrolled in a specific staged-care approach protocol, which included coronary arteriography (CAR) and ventriculography (VC), in order to exclude the need of cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), with and without left ventricular aneurysmectomy (LVA). The protocol included inducibility of VT/VF, which was verified by programmed electrical stimulation (PES) in control conditions and after antiarrhythmic therapy (ADT), to assess persistent inducibility and mainly to verify the hemodynamic sequelae of VT. VT that showed poor hemodynamic tolerance was treated with ICD, while well-tolerated VT was treated by ADT or ablation when indicated. Furthermore, PES was obtained after surgical procedures. As a first step, the patients were assigned to receive amiodarone (AMIO) (200-400 mg/daily) in the presence of EF% < 30% or contraindication to sotalol, (Group A), or sotalol (SOT) (80-140 mg/daily) in the presence of EF > or = 31%. (Group C). Conversely, in case of recurrences, patients were assigned to receive AMIO (200-300 mg/daily) plus metoprolol (MET) (20-100 mg/daily), (Group B) or, in case of intolerance to beta-blockers, to AMIO plus mexiletine (MEX) (200 mg/daily) (Group D). The four groups were similar for the type of VA, with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (RVT) being the most frequent one. The most frequent underlying cardiac disease of VA in this study was post-AMI CAD, with a rate of over 60% in all four groups. Single- and two-vessel lesions were found at CAR in various patients in all four groups, in 5/13 (38%) in Group A, in 8/14 (57%) in Group B, in 5/7 (71%) in Group C, and in 3/5 (60%) in Group D. Cardiac surgery was performed in a similar and limited number of patients in all four groups, in 4/13 (30%) in Group A, in 4/14 (35%) in Group B, in 2/7 (28%) in Group C, and in 2/5 (40%) in Group D. In 8/39 (20.5%) of the patients who underwent CABG, there was no operative or late mortality; 4/39 (10.2%) received CABG and LVA, and two died. For the amiodarone plus metoprolol and sotalol patients only, PES showed a lower residual inducibility, in comparison to the amiodarone and amiodarone + mexiletine groups. In the entire group, 7 out of 26 (27%) were still inducibile at PES while in 19/26 (64%) of the patients, an apparently effective treatment could be found, documenting the relative usefulness of PES. Recurrence rate was the highest in the amiodarone + mexiletine group and in patients with previous CA. Our data show the potential utility and limitations of ADT, even using the most effective antiarrhythmic drugs and association of drugs, mainly because of the high recurrence rate of VT observed in the present study, even in non-inducible patients [14/39 (36%)]. In conclusion, in a prospective and staged-care approach protocol of management of VT/VF patients, only a few patients with VT/VF benefited from cardiac surgery. PES could still play a role in the evaluation of the most effective ADT. Amiodarone + metoprolol seems to be the most effective ADT in these patients. Nevertheless, a high recurrence rate was observed in this patient population, even with an aggressive protocol, in the short follow-up period of 12 +/- 8 months, confirming recent data on the superiority of ICD to ADT, in patients with frequent recurrences or hemodynamically poorly-tolerated VT. In these patients, ICD therapy should definitively be preferred to ADT.