Khan HM, Leslie SJ. Risk factors for sudden cardiac death to determine high risk patients in specific patient populations that may benefit from a wearable defibrillator. World J Cardiol 2019; 11(3): 103-119 [PMID: 31040933 DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v11.i3.103]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Stephen J Leslie, FRCP (C), MBBS, MRCP, PhD, Professor, Cardiac Unit, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness IV2 3UJ, United Kingdom. stephen.leslie@nhs.net
Research Domain of This Article
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Article-Type of This Article
Systematic Reviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Hilal Mohammed Khan, Stephen J Leslie, Cardiac Unit, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness IV2 3UJ, United Kingdom
Stephen J Leslie, Department of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Science, University of the Highlands and Islands, The Centre for Health Science, Old Perth Road, Inverness IV2 3JH, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Khan HM and Leslie SJ contributed equally to this work; designed research; performed research; and wrote the paper.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this manuscript.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Stephen J Leslie, FRCP (C), MBBS, MRCP, PhD, Professor, Cardiac Unit, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness IV2 3UJ, United Kingdom. stephen.leslie@nhs.net
Telephone: +44-1463-705459
Received: January 6, 2019 Peer-review started: January 8, 2019 First decision: January 21, 2019 Revised: January 27, 2019 Accepted: March 16, 2019 Article in press: March 16, 2019 Published online: March 26, 2019 Processing time: 94 Days and 7.3 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
There is a high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in certain patient groups that would not meet criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. In conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) there are clear risk scores that help define patients who are high risk for SCD and would benefit from ICD therapy. There are however many areas of uncertainty such as certain patients post myocardial infarction (MI). These patients are high risk for SCD but there is no clear tool for risk stratifying such patients.
AIM
To assess risk factors for sudden cardiac death in major cardiac disorders and to help select patients who might benefit from Wearable cardiac defibrillators (WCD).
METHODS
A literature search was performed looking for risk factors for SCD in patients post-MI, patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), HCM, long QT syndrome (LQTS). There were 41 studies included and risk factors and the relative risks for SCD were compiled in table form.
RESULTS
We extracted data on relative risk for SCD of specific variables such as age, gender, ejection fraction. The greatest risk factors for SCD in post MI patients was the presence of diabetes [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.90-3.80], in patient with LVSD was ventricular tachycardia (Relative risk 3.50), in LQTS was a prolonged QTc (HR 36.53) and in patients with HCM was LVH greater than 20 mm (HR 3.10). A proportion of patients currently not suitable for ICD might benefit from a WCD
CONCLUSION
There is a very high risk of SCD post MI, in patients with LVSD, HCM and LQTS even in those who do not meet criteria for ICD implantation. These patients may be candidates for a WCD. The development of more sensitive risk calculators to predict SCD is necessary in these patients to help guide treatment.
Core tip: This article looks at the risk factors for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients post myocardial infarction, patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, patients with long QT syndrome and the relative risk for sudden cardiac death of these risk factors. This is compared to the absolute risk of SCD for these conditions. We reviewed the recommendations from current guidelines and we outline where patients are at high risk for SCD but are not eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. The risk factors identified in this study can be used to select patients who may benefit from Wearable cardiac defibrillators therapy.
Citation: Khan HM, Leslie SJ. Risk factors for sudden cardiac death to determine high risk patients in specific patient populations that may benefit from a wearable defibrillator. World J Cardiol 2019; 11(3): 103-119
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major global health problem estimated to account for 15%-20% of death[1]. The mechanism of SCD has changed substantially over the last decade with ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) accounting for between 23%-36% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests[2,3]. This compares to 75% of cases of SCD in the 1980’s and early 1990’s[4,5]. The decline in SCD due to VT/VF is partly due to improved medical care such as the use of beta blockers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD)[6,7]. Thus VF and pulseless VT are potentially treatable heart rhythms particularly if patients are given an early DC shock with return of an organised rhythm in up to 70% of cases after a single biphasic shock[8]. This has led to the development of multiple measures such as automated external defibrillators in public places, ICD therapy and wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) to reduce the rate of preventable death from VF/VT.
History of defibrillation
The first successful closed chest direct current cardioversion of ventricular fibrillation was performed by Paul Zoll in the 1950’s[9]. This was initially a monophasic shock but more recently biphasic shocks are used. Biphasic waveforms have superior efficacy to monophasic pulses[8] and the European resuscitation council recommend a first shock at 150-200 J with subsequent shocks at a higher energy level if the device allows and the arrhythmia remains uncorrected[10]. Return of sinus rhythm and spontaneous circulation after administration of biphasic shocks occurs in up to 70% in patients with VF or VT[8]. This highlights the high efficacy of this relatively simple treatment.
The first ICD was implanted in a patient in 1980 by Mirowski et al[11]. There have since been multiple studies proving the benefit of ICDs in preventing SCD and reducing all-cause mortality. These include primary prevention studies which show a reduction in mortality from SCD of between 23%-54%[12-16](Table 1) and secondary prevention studies which show a reduction in mortality from SCD of between 20%-28%[17-19](Table 2). Current guidelines based on the results of these and other studies recommend the insertion of ICD in patients more than 40 d post myocardial infarction (MI) with severe LVSD (ejection fraction less than 35%), patients with severe LVSD and in several other situations such as high risk hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients, patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) with a history of cardiac arrest. These guidelines advise against inserting an ICD for patients who survive sustained VT or VF within the first 48 h of an MI unless they have pre-existing LV impairment and are on optimal medical therapy already or they have incomplete revascularisation, as it is felt that tachyarrhythmia within this period is most likely due to the acute coronary obstruction and cardiac injury[20].
Survivors of cardiac arrest secondary to documented ventricular arrhythmias
23% (P = 0.08)
In other patients an ICD may not be possible due to infection or lack of vascular access or patient preference. Thus, some high risk patients who would warrant an ICD do not have one. In order to address this, the WCD was developed. The WCD has been in development since 1986 and had been tested for 17 years prior to it receiving the Food and Drug Administration approval in 2002[21]. The WCD is a device contained within a vest worn under a patient’s clothes which records a patient’s rhythm and delivers a shock if a shockable rhythm occurs[22]. This has provided a much lower risk solution to ICD implantation in selected patients. Current guidelines recommend considering a WCD or ICD post MI within 40 d of their MI in patients with incomplete revascularisation, VT or VF > 48 h post MI or pre-existing LVSD[23]. Additional groups of patients that could benefit from a WCD include patients with channelopathies such as LQTS who have not suffered a VT or VF event but have high risk features, patients with HCM who have intermediate risk features but not yet achieving criteria for ICD implantation, and also patients with infected ICDs could be offered a WCD once their ICD has been removed and they are awaiting ICD re-implantation. WCD do however come with a risk of inappropriate shocks and their efficacy can be reduced due to a lack of patient compliance.
The aim of this review is to use existing literature to identify risk factors for SCD that may help identify patients who may benefit from a WCD and to discuss the potential role that WCDs could play in reducing the risk of SCD in selected patient groups who do not currently meet guidelines for ICD implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This review included available data on risk factors for SCD in predefined patient groups. All odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), Exp(b) and hazard ratio (HR) were rounded to 2 decimal places for consistency. OR is a statistic defined as the ratio of the odds of variable A in the presence of variable B and the odds of variable A without the presence of variable B. RR is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an exposed group to the probability of an outcome in an unexposed group. The HR is an expression of the hazard or chance of events occurring in the treatment arm as a ratio of the hazard of the events occurring in the control arm
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
All studies that reported risk factors for SCD in patients with LVSD, LQTS, HCM or post MI. There was no restriction on age, gender, geographical area or date of publication. Studies reported in English. Any studies where the risk of SCD was not quantified by either a HR, OR or RR were excluded.
Search strategy
A literature search was performed in 4 main groups of patients: Search terms included: (risk of SCD* or risk factors for SCD* or SCD* or female gender and outcome* or mortality in patients* or mortality in women* or risk stratification for SCD* or risk of cardiac arrest* or atrial fibrillation and mortality* or echocardiographic predictors of outcome* or risk of death* or COPD and mortality* or prognosis of heart failure* or risk of death in patients*) and (post myocardial infarction* or after myocardial infarction* or after acute st elevation myocardial infarction* or after ST elevation myocardial infarction* or with inferior myocardial infarction* or following myocardial infarction* or after myocardial infarction* or myocardial scarring* or electrocardiographic abnormalities* or patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy* or heart failure* or patients with heart failure* or left ventricular dysfunction* or after hospitalization for heart failure* or in the community* or new diagnosis of heart failure* or LQTS*).
The risk factor in each group that was associated with SCD, was then tabulated along with the relevant studies that supported this finding.
RESULTS
Results of literature search
The initial search strategy produced 21620 articles. Removal of duplicates and screening of the papers reduced the number to 480 articles. A further 435 papers were removed after reading of the full text. During data extraction an additional 4 papers were removed as a result of not having the prerequisite data available in the correct form. Forty one papers were included in the final data analysis (Figure 1)
Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.
Risk of sudden cardiac death post myocardial infarction
In patients post MI, 16 studies were identified involving a total of 250766 patients[24-39](Table 3). The absolute risk of SCD in these studies varied from around 4.9%-8%[24,26,30,33]. The absolute risk of SCD was 4.9% in the first month post-MI and decreased thereafter[24]. Another study showed a cumulative risk of SCD at 1 year to be 5.3%[26]. One study showed a risk of SCD of 7% at 30 d and 11% at 2 years[30]. Another study showed a risk of SCD at 4% in those with EF > 35% and 8% in those with EF < 35% at one year[33].
Table 3 Risk factors for sudden cardiac death post myocardial infarction.
Several risk factors for SCD were identified post MI in order of decreasing magnitude: diabetes (HR 1.90-3.80), LVSD (HR 1.21 to 3.64), NSVT (HR 3.30), right ventricular involvement (OR 3.20), premature ventricular complexes occurring at a frequency of 10 or more per hour (HR 2.40), female gender (OR 1.09-1.76), older age (OR 1.03-1.56), LBBB (HR 1.49), non-specific intraventricular conduction delay (HR 1.44) and LVH (OR 1.40)[24-39].
Risk factors for sudden cardiac death in heart failure
In patients with heart failure, 15 studies were identified involving a total of 65182 patients[40-54](Table 4). The absolute risk of SCD in these studies varied from 8.8%-23.7%[49,50]. Doval et al[49] showed that in patients with NSVT the risk of SCD at 2 year was 23.7% compared to 8.8% in those who do not have NSVT at 2 years. Teerlink et al[50] showed that the risk of SCD was 13% at 2 years.
Table 4 Risk factors for sudden cardiac death in heart failure.
Several features increasing the risk of SCD were identified in order of decreasing magnitude: VT (RR 3.50), NSVT (RR 2.77-3.89), couplets (RR 3.37), cirrhosis (OR 3.22), 1-SD difference in LV Mass (RR 2.75), a 1-SD difference in LV end systolic dimension (RR 2.73), deranged kidney function (HR 2.02-2.64), dementia (OR 2.54), cancer (OR 1.86), the degree of left ventricular impairment(less than 40%) (HR 1.29-1.80), older age (OR 1.70), COPD (OR 1.66), atrial fibrillation (HR 0.89-1.55), male gender (HR 1.21-1.50) and cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.43)[40-54].
Risk of sudden cardiac death in the long QT syndrome
In patients with LQTS, 5 studies were identified with a total of 9758 patients[55-59](Table 5). The absolute risk of SCD in these studies varied from 4.9%-13%[55,57]. Sauer et al[55] showed that the risk of SCD from the age of 18 until follow-up at the age of 40 was 4.9% in LQTS1, 8.0% in LQTS2 and 4.9% in LQTS3. Priori et al[57] showed that the risk of SCD was 13% over 28 years of follow-up before the age of 40.
Table 5 Risk factors for sudden cardiac death in the long QT syndrome.
Several risk factors for SCD were identified in order of decreasing magnitude including: LQTS with a prolonged QTc interval (HR 36.53), LQTS with a normal range QTc interval (HR 10.25), LQTS 1 (HR 9.88), length of QTc interval (RR 5.34-8.36), consistent QTc interval prolongation (HR 2.23-6.67), previous history of cardiac events (syncope or aborted SCA) (HR 3.10-5.10), LQTS 3 (RR 1.80-2.76), female gender (HR 2.68), LQTS 2 (RR 1.61) and bradycardia (HR 1.02)[55-59].
Risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with HCM
In HCM there were 5 studies involving a total of 25823 patients[60-64](Table 6). The risk of SCD in HCM was about 5% over 5 years[60].
Table 6 Risk factors for sudden cardiac death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
The following risk factors for SCD in order of decreasing magnitude were identified including: LVH (highest risk when greater than 20 mm) (HR 1.05-3.17), NSVT (HR 2.53-2.92), syncope (HR 2.31-2.68), left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (HR 1.01-2.41), family history of SCD (HR 1.27-2.34), abnormal blood pressure response during exercise (HR 1.30-1.38) and an enlarged left atrial diameter (HR 1.04)[60-64].
Wearable cardioverter defibrillator studies
There are currently only a few published outcome studies of WCDs. The WCD use in patients perceived to be at high risk, early post-MI study showed that 1.6% of patients received an appropriate shock for VT/VF and up to 67% of patients with VT/VF survived because of an appropriate shock[65]. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 1.1% of patients; none of the inappropriate shocks induced an arrhythmia.
“The aggregate national experience with the WCD vest: event rates, compliance and survival study” showed that 1.7% of patients received an appropriate shock for VT/VF. It also showed that 90% of patients survived because of an appropriate shock for VT/VF[66]. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 1.9% of patients[66].
The Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial compared WCD therapy to optimal medical therapy that was the control group. This trial showed that 0.6% of patients received an inappropriate shock. 1.4% of patients received an appropriate shock. The number of hours per day, the WCD was worn was 14.1 h. The risk of SCD was 1.6% in the WCD group compared to 2.4% in the control group (P = 0.18). All-cause mortality in the WCD group was 3.1% compared to 4.9% in the control group (P = 0.04)[67](Table 7).
Table 7 Summary of wearable cardioverter defibrillator studies.
Study
General findings
Survival post shock
Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients perceived to be at high risk early post-myocardial infarction[65]
99 out of 8453 patients received 114 inappropriate shocks. None of the inappropriate shocks induced arrhythmias. The inappropriate shock rate was 0.006 shocks per patient month of use.
67% for those with VT/VF; 62% for those treated for PMVT/VF
Aggregate national experience with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator vest: event rates, compliance and survival[66]
Inappropriate shocks occurred in 67/3569 (1.9%) patients
Risk of SCD (WCD vs Control): 1.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.18. All-cause mortality (WCD vs Control): 3.1% vs 4.9%, P = 0.04
DISCUSSION
The risk of SCD in various groups of patients has been well studied. This has led to the development of clear criteria for ICD implantation[23]. There is data on various subgroups of patients that quantifies the magnitude of known risk factors for SCD (post MI, LQTS, HCM and LVSD). There are clear guidelines on the use of ICD in these groups of patients but a lack of clear guidelines for WCD therapy. This study has identified risk factors for several groups of patients who may not qualify for an ICD (due to the risk associated with implantation) but could benefit from WCD. These risk factors may help select patient for WCD therapy.
In patients who have recently had an MI with severe LVSD, guidelines recommend primary prevention with an ICD should be delayed for 40 d as the degree of myocardial recovery is uncertain in the acute period. This leaves certain patients without the best possible treatment if they were to have a further episode of VT/VF or patients who develop VT/VF later as a result of left ventricular dysfunction resulting from an MI. Patients post-MI are at increased risk of SCD. Several factors are associated with this increased risk of SCD. These risk factors could be used to select patient who may benefit from WCD post MI and if there risk remains high, they could be offered an ICD at 40 d. In addition, the DINAMIT study looked at early ICD implantation within 6-40 d vs optimal medical therapy. The DINAMIT study showed a reduction in arrhythmic death with early ICD implantation but no effect on overall mortality[68]. These results do raise the question of whether there are device related deaths that may reduce the overall mortality benefit such as device infections, procedural complications etc. These risks would not be present with WCD as there are no procedural risks associated with these devices. Some studies have advocated differentiating ICD implantation in the setting of acute MI based on whether the VT/VF occurred within 48 h in which case it could be attributed to acute MI and the treatment was revascularisation or if it occurred after 48 h in the absence of recurrent ischemia then these patients needed ICD implantation on the basis of secondary prevention and the 40 d rule in guidelines shouldn’t apply[69]. These patients could also potentially be covered by using a WCD until the 40 d window has elapsed. In addition, the highest risk of SCD is within the first 30 d of an MI and so high-risk patients who have not yet suffered VT/VF may benefit from a WCD during this period[30]. The risk factors identified in this study could be used to help select such patients.
In patients with LVSD, guidelines only recommend an ICD if EF is less than 35 percent. This is the group of patients who are at the highest risk of SCD from LVSD. Studies of heart failure patients with an EF between 30% and 35% have shown that these patients also benefit from ICD therapy and have a lower mortality than the same group of patients without an ICD[70]. This would also lead one to believe that patients at higher EF with more high risk features may also benefit from having a defibrillator such patients could be offered a WCD as a lower risk option than ICD implantation. Similarly patients post-MI who develop severe LVSD are not offered a ICD and are sent home for a clinic review in 40 d to assess the degree of myocardial recovery during this period. This is potentially dangerous as the absolute risk of SCD during this period is about 4.9% which is similar to the risk of SCD in patients with HCM at which an ICD would be implanted these patients should probably all be offered a WCD during this time period[24,60]. It is important to note, however, the results of the recent VEST trial looking at the risk of SCD in WCD patient vs controls in the first 90 d post MI. It did not show a statistically significant reduction in SCD (1.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.18) but there was a trend to lower risk of SCD in the WCD group. It did show a reduction in overall mortality (3.1% vs 4.9%, P = 0.04). These results are the opposite of the DINAMIT study this may be due to poor patient compliance with compliance decreasing with time during the study, which may have contributed to the lack of a significant reduction in SCD. It is important to note that at the time of SCD only 8 of 25 patients in the treatment group were wearing their WCD[67]. Another group of patient who may benefit from a WCD are those who are awaiting heart transplantation. These patients should be offered an ICD based on current guidelines pre-transplantation; however, a WCD could be used as an alternative in these patients while they await their heart transplant.
In patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, the risk for SCD appears to be lower than those with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. They also do not appear to benefit from ICD therapy in the same way as patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy as was shown by the recent defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure (DANISH) study. The DANISH study showed no significant reduction in all-cause mortality between the ICD therapy and standard care group (21.6% vs 23.4%, P = 0.28). It did show a reduction in sudden cardiac death in the ICD group when compared to the standard care group ((4.3% vs 8.2%, P = 0.005)[16]. This reinforces the need for a risk stratification tool to help determine individual risk factors that would make patients at higher risk for SCD. This study does help provide data that could be used to select not only patients for WCD but also patients who might benefit from an ICD in this patient group.
In patients with LQTS guidelines only recommend an ICD in these patients if they have survived an episode of VT/VF. This may be an unacceptable risk for some patients and a WCD could afford these patients with some protection until they meet criteria for a permanent ICD. One large study used 4 variables which included age, length of QTc, symptoms and the presence of cardiac arrest to determine the decision on whether patients were likely to benefit from therapy with an ICD in LQTS[71]. Such a risk score could also be used to offer patients a choice between an ICD or a WCD.
Patients with HCM who have 5 year risk of death of less than 6% could be offered a WCD if they find the risk of SCD unacceptable. The ESC HCM risk-SCD calculator has a cut off of > 6% at which an ICD should be implanted. There may be patients who do not want an ICD and these patients could also be offered a WCD as an alternative.
A large WCD registry showed that WCD usage in patients with HCM and LQTS was safe, effective and associated with a high rate of compliance[72]. A further large meta-analysis of WCD showed that WCD have a 95% success rate at terminating arrhythmias[73].The HCM risk-SCD calculator provides a very helpful measure of assessing a patient’s risk of SCD and making treatment decisions in patients with HCM. It would be useful to develop risk calculators for SCD in other conditions, which are more common and have a much larger impact on global mortality. This would provide patients and doctors with more information to make the best decision regarding their care.
The following groups of patients could also benefit from WCD therapy; patients who have an explanted ICD for infective endocarditis and must wait a certain time period before reinsertion, patients who have a risk of SCD but have a lower absolute risk such that the cost and risk of ICD insertion can’t be justified, patients in remote areas where there is no expertise for ICD insertion, patients with myocarditis, patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy, patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy, patients with advanced stage chronic kidney disease and children and young adults with channelopathies. The risk factors compiled in this review article could be used to help risk stratify many of these patients. The risk factors for patients post MI could be extrapolated to patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy and myocarditis as all these processes involve an acute myocardial injury and so could be expected to have similar risk factors for SCD. In addition, the risk factors for LVSD could be extrapolated to patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy and those awaiting heart transplantation to determine high risk patients who may benefit from a WCD. There is potentially large scope for the use of WCD in carefully selected patient populations. One of the key disadvantages to WCD is the dependence on patient compliance for successful therapy as patients may decide to not wear the WCD, which can be a key limiting factor in its success.
In conclusion, we have identified multiple risk factors for sudden cardiac death in various conditions that could be used to help select patients for WCD therapy. The WCD is a landmark development that provides patients and physicians an additional therapy for the treatment of SCD; however, it is underutilized due to a lack of clear guidelines governing its usage[74]. SCD remains a common cause of death and continued effort must be made to try and develop more targeted approaches to treatment for SCD.
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
There are many groups of patients including those post myocardial infarction (MI), patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) that do not meet criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. This study looked at risk factors for SCD in these patient groups, which could be used as a method for identifying patients at high risk for SCD. Patients at high risk for SCD but not meeting conventional indications for ICD therapy could be offered a WCD until an ICD was indicated.
Research motivation
There is a need for more refined risk calculators to determine the risk of SCD in various conditions as is already present for patients with HCM. There is a requisite for more refined risk calculators to determine the risk of SCD in various conditions such as patients post MI, patients with LVSD, patients with LQTS and other channelopathies, patients with post-partum cardiomyopathy, patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy, patients with myocarditis and patients with advanced chronic renal failure. This would allow better selection of patients at high risk of SCD and allow physicians to offer their patients the best treatment for each specific patient based on their individual risk.
Research objectives
The main objectives of our study were to collate the risk factors for SCD in specific patient groups as mentioned previously. These risk factors were to be used as a guide to help in determining high-risk patients that may benefit from WCD therapy. This to the best of our knowledge is the first attempt made at collating risk factors for SCD for various conditions in one place. This should help future studies to build on this data and hopefully give rise to risk calculators for SCD in these and many more conditions.
Research methods
We performed a literature search on PubMed. The studies were then selected according to whether they met the inclusion criteria for our review article. The inclusion criteria were any study that reported risk factors for SCD in patients with LVSD, LQTS, HCM or post MI. There was no restriction on age, gender, geographical area or date of publication. Studies had to be reported in English. Any studies where the risk of SCD was not quantified by either a hazard ratio, odds ratio or relative risk were excluded. The relevant risk factors for SCD in the 4 main conditions were then collected and tabulated in table format.
Research results
We collected a large number of risk factors for SCD in all 4 patients groups. These risk factors provide a robust method of assessing a patients risk for SCD. The study also looked at several WCD studies which showed that WCD were effective at terminating VT/VF but were limited in their effectiveness by patient compliance.
Research conclusions
This review shows that there are many risk factors for SCD that to the best of our knowledge have never been compiled together in one place such as this study has done. We also show that WCD are effective therapies for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, but are limited by patient compliance.
This should help in the development of more precise risk calculators for sudden cardiac death such as the existing risk calculator for HCM. This should also help select patients who may benefit from WCD.
Research perspectives
This study demonstrates the wealth of data present that could be used to create precise risk calculators for SCD. These risk calculators could be used to determine patients at high risk for SCD. It could be used to select which patients need an ICD and which could benefit from a WCD. Further study should be in the form of a meta-analysis to allow this area of research to move forward.
Footnotes
Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript
Specialty type: Endocrinology and metabolism
Country of origin: United Kingdom
Peer-review report classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): 0
Grade D (Fair): D, D
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Barik R, Petix NR, Ueda H S-Editor: Wang JL L-Editor: A E-Editor: Zhang YL
Myerburg RJ, Castellanos A. Sudden cardiac death, Cardiac electrophysiology: From cell to bedside.
Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier 2009; 797–808.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Nadkarni VM, Larkin GL, Peberdy MA, Carey SM, Kaye W, Mancini ME, Nichol G, Lane-Truitt T, Potts J, Ornato JP, Berg RA; National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators. First documented rhythm and clinical outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest among children and adults.JAMA. 2006;295:50-57.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 857][Cited by in F6Publishing: 818][Article Influence: 45.4][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Myerburg RJ, Kessler KM, Castellanos A. Sudden cardiac death. Structure, function, and time-dependence of risk.Circulation. 1992;85:I2-10.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Hulleman M, Berdowski J, de Groot JR, van Dessel PF, Borleffs CJ, Blom MT, Bardai A, de Cock CC, Tan HL, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have reduced the incidence of resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest caused by lethal arrhythmias.Circulation. 2012;126:815-821.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 66][Cited by in F6Publishing: 68][Article Influence: 5.7][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW, Perkins GD, Lott C, Carli P, Pellis T, Sandroni C, Skrifvars MB, Smith GB, Sunde K, Deakin CD; Adult advanced life support section Collaborators. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support.Resuscitation. 2015;95:100-147.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 933][Cited by in F6Publishing: 932][Article Influence: 116.5][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Mirowski M, Reid PR, Mower MM, Watkins L, Gott VL, Schauble JF, Langer A, Heilman MS, Kolenik SA, Fischell RE, Weisfeldt ML. Termination of malignant ventricular arrhythmias with an implanted automatic defibrillator in human beings.N Engl J Med. 1980;303:322-324.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 1034][Cited by in F6Publishing: 866][Article Influence: 19.7][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H, Levine JH, Saksena S, Waldo AL, Wilber D, Brown MW, Heo M. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators.N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1933-1940.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 2967][Cited by in F6Publishing: 2721][Article Influence: 97.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Brown MW, Andrews ML; Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II Investigators. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877-883.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 5067][Cited by in F6Publishing: 4749][Article Influence: 215.9][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, Domanski M, Troutman C, Anderson J, Johnson G, McNulty SE, Clapp-Channing N, Davidson-Ray LD, Fraulo ES, Fishbein DP, Luceri RM, Ip JH; Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure.N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225-237.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 4998][Cited by in F6Publishing: 4692][Article Influence: 246.9][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS, Mitchell LB, Green MS, Klein GJ, O'Brien B. Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS): a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone.Circulation. 2000;101:1297-1302.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 1078][Cited by in F6Publishing: 951][Article Influence: 39.6][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Kusumoto FM, Calkins H, Boehmer J, Buxton AE, Chung MK, Gold MR, Hohnloser SH, Indik J, Lee R, Mehra MR, Menon V, Page RL, Shen WK, Slotwiner DJ, Stevenson LW, Varosy PD, Welikovitch L. HRS/ACC/AHA expert consensus statement on the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients who are not included or not well represented in clinical trials.Circulation. 2014;130:94-125.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 80][Cited by in F6Publishing: 92][Article Influence: 9.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Priori SG, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, Blom N, Borggrefe M, Camm J, Elliott PM, Fitzsimons D, Hatala R, Hindricks G, Kirchhof P, Kjeldsen K, Kuck KH, Hernandez-Madrid A, Nikolaou N, Norekvål TM, Spaulding C, Van Veldhuisen DJ; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC).Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2793-2867.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 2447][Cited by in F6Publishing: 2582][Article Influence: 286.9][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Abildstrom SZ, Rask-Madsen C, Ottesen MM, Andersen PK, Rosthøj S, Torp-Pedersen C, Køber L; TRACE Study Group. Trandolapril cardiac evaluation. Impact of age and sex on sudden cardiovascular death following myocardial infarction.Heart. 2002;88:573-578.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 20][Cited by in F6Publishing: 25][Article Influence: 1.1][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Solomon SD, Zelenkofske S, McMurray JJ, Finn PV, Velazquez E, Ertl G, Harsanyi A, Rouleau JL, Maggioni A, Kober L, White H, Van de Werf F, Pieper K, Califf RM, Pfeffer MA; Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT) Investigators. Sudden death in patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both.N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2581-2588.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 596][Cited by in F6Publishing: 585][Article Influence: 30.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Maggioni AP, Zuanetti G, Franzosi MG, Rovelli F, Santoro E, Staszewsky L, Tavazzi L, Tognoni G. Prevalence and prognostic significance of ventricular arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction in the fibrinolytic era. GISSI-2 results.Circulation. 1993;87:312-322.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 210][Cited by in F6Publishing: 218][Article Influence: 7.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Zimetbaum PJ, Buxton AE, Batsford W, Fisher JD, Hafley GE, Lee KL, O'Toole MF, Page RL, Reynolds M, Josephson ME. Electrocardiographic predictors of arrhythmic death and total mortality in the multicenter unsustained tachycardia trial.Circulation. 2004;110:766-769.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 140][Cited by in F6Publishing: 142][Article Influence: 7.1][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Yoshihisa A, Takiguchi M, Shimizu T, Nakamura Y, Yamauchi H, Iwaya S, Owada T, Miyata M, Abe S, Sato T, Suzuki S, Oikawa M, Kobayashi A, Yamaki T, Sugimoto K, Kunii H, Nakazato K, Suzuki H, Saitoh S, Takeishi Y. Cardiovascular function and prognosis of patients with heart failure coexistent with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.J Cardiol. 2014;64:256-264.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 44][Cited by in F6Publishing: 52][Article Influence: 5.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, Varini SD, Soifer S, Corrado G, Dubner S, Scapin O, Perrone SV. Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in severe heart failure. Independent marker of increased mortality due to sudden death. GESICA-GEMA Investigators.Circulation. 1996;94:3198-3203.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 169][Cited by in F6Publishing: 158][Article Influence: 5.6][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Teerlink JR, Jalaluddin M, Anderson S, Kukin ML, Eichhorn EJ, Francis G, Packer M, Massie BM. Ambulatory ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure do not specifically predict an increased risk of sudden death. PROMISE (Prospective Randomized Milrinone Survival Evaluation) Investigators.Circulation. 2000;101:40-46.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 139][Cited by in F6Publishing: 145][Article Influence: 6.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Szabó BM, van Veldhuisen DJ, Crijns HJ, Wiesfeld AC, Hillege HL, Lie KI. Value of ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring to identify increased risk of sudden death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure.Eur Heart J. 1994;15:928-933.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 31][Cited by in F6Publishing: 33][Article Influence: 1.1][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Shadman R, Poole JE, Dardas TF, Mozaffarian D, Cleland JG, Swedberg K, Maggioni AP, Anand IS, Carson PE, Miller AB, Levy WC. A novel method to predict the proportional risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure: Derivation of the Seattle Proportional Risk Model.Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:2069-2077.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 64][Cited by in F6Publishing: 73][Article Influence: 8.1][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Quiñones MA, Greenberg BH, Kopelen HA, Koilpillai C, Limacher MC, Shindler DM, Shelton BJ, Weiner DH. Echocardiographic predictors of clinical outcome in patients with left ventricular dysfunction enrolled in the SOLVD registry and trials: significance of left ventricular hypertrophy. Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1237-1244.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 202][Cited by in F6Publishing: 197][Article Influence: 8.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Grayburn PA, Appleton CP, DeMaria AN, Greenberg B, Lowes B, Oh J, Plehn JF, Rahko P, St John Sutton M, Eichhorn EJ; BEST Trial Echocardiographic Substudy Investigators. Echocardiographic predictors of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure: the Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST).J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1064-1071.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 135][Cited by in F6Publishing: 122][Article Influence: 6.4][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Sauer AJ, Moss AJ, McNitt S, Peterson DR, Zareba W, Robinson JL, Qi M, Goldenberg I, Hobbs JB, Ackerman MJ, Benhorin J, Hall WJ, Kaufman ES, Locati EH, Napolitano C, Priori SG, Schwartz PJ, Towbin JA, Vincent GM, Zhang L. Long QT syndrome in adults.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:329-337.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 299][Cited by in F6Publishing: 258][Article Influence: 15.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Goldenberg I, Horr S, Moss AJ, Lopes CM, Barsheshet A, McNitt S, Zareba W, Andrews ML, Robinson JL, Locati EH, Ackerman MJ, Benhorin J, Kaufman ES, Napolitano C, Platonov PG, Priori SG, Qi M, Schwartz PJ, Shimizu W, Towbin JA, Vincent GM, Wilde AA, Zhang L. Risk for life-threatening cardiac events in patients with genotype-confirmed long-QT syndrome and normal-range corrected QT intervals.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:51-59.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 204][Cited by in F6Publishing: 206][Article Influence: 15.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
O'Mahony C, Jichi F, Pavlou M, Monserrat L, Anastasakis A, Rapezzi C, Biagini E, Gimeno JR, Limongelli G, McKenna WJ, Omar RZ, Elliott PM; Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Outcomes Investigators. A novel clinical risk prediction model for sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM risk-SCD).Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2010-2020.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 630][Cited by in F6Publishing: 774][Article Influence: 70.4][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Sugrue A, Killu AM, DeSimone CV, Chahal AA, Vogt JC, Kremen V, Hai J, Hodge DO, Acker NG, Geske JB, Ackerman MJ, Ommen SR, Lin G, Noseworthy PA, Brady PA. Utility of T-wave amplitude as a non-invasive risk marker of sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Open Heart. 2017;4:e000561.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 7][Cited by in F6Publishing: 11][Article Influence: 1.6][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Maeda R, Minami Y, Haruki S, Kanbayashi K, Itani R, Suzuki A, Ejima K, Shiga T, Shoda M, Hagiwara N. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy and sudden death risk stratification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with midventricular obstruction: A single-center experience.Int J Cardiol. 2016;214:419-422.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 8][Cited by in F6Publishing: 6][Article Influence: 0.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Olgin JE, Pletcher MJ, Vittinghoff E, Wranicz J, Malik R, Morin DP, Zweibel S, Buxton AE, Elayi CS, Chung EH, Rashba E, Borggrefe M, Hue TF, Maguire C, Lin F, Simon JA, Hulley S, Lee BK; VEST Investigators. Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction.N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1205-1215.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 165][Cited by in F6Publishing: 196][Article Influence: 32.7][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Al-Khatib SM, Hellkamp AS, Fonarow GC, Mark DB, Curtis LH, Hernandez AF, Anstrom KJ, Peterson ED, Sanders GD, Al-Khalidi HR, Hammill BG, Heidenreich PA, Hammill SC. Association between prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and survival in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35%.JAMA. 2014;311:2209-2215.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 28][Cited by in F6Publishing: 30][Article Influence: 3.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Schwartz PJ, Spazzolini C, Priori SG, Crotti L, Vicentini A, Landolina M, Gasparini M, Wilde AA, Knops RE, Denjoy I, Toivonen L, Mönnig G, Al-Fayyadh M, Jordaens L, Borggrefe M, Holmgren C, Brugada P, De Roy L, Hohnloser SH, Brink PA. Who are the long-QT syndrome patients who receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and what happens to them?: data from the European Long-QT Syndrome Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (LQTS ICD) Registry.Circulation. 2010;122:1272-1282.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 214][Cited by in F6Publishing: 193][Article Influence: 13.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Kutyifa V, Moss AJ, Klein H, Biton Y, McNitt S, MacKecknie B, Zareba W, Goldenberg I. Use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in high-risk cardiac patients: data from the Prospective Registry of Patients Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WEARIT-II Registry).Circulation. 2015;132:1613-1619.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 155][Cited by in F6Publishing: 176][Article Influence: 19.6][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]