Israel Medical Association Journal

A 42-year-old healthy man collapsed suddenly in the street while walking. The patient received 2 minutes of basic life support until an automatic external defibrillator was brought and detected ventricular fibrillation (VF), which was successfully terminated by a single shock. The patient regained consciousness and was transferred to the hospital.

The patient’s physical examination was normal with no neurologic deficit. Blood pressure was 147/102 mmHg. Brain computed tomography showed normal findings. The first troponin I measurement within 1 hour of the event was in the normal range (19.6 ng/L, normal < 20 ng/L) and rose to 99.9 ng/L after 3 hours.

Background: Syncope prognosis varies widely: 1 year mortality may range from 0% in the case of vasovagal events up to 30% in the presence of heart disease. 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and indication of primary prevention and compare patients presenting with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation with the indication of primary prevention and history of syncope and compared them to a control group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the number of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), and death in each group during the follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95% confidence interval) (no difference between groups). Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction (EF) (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01) and also received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), in cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2% P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9% P = 0.18) during the follow-up.

Conclusions: Syncopal patients before ICD implantation seem to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No mortality differences were observed

 

Background: Syncope is a common clinical condition spanning from benign to life-threatening diseases. There is sparse information on the outcomes of syncopal patients who received an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of SCD and compare them to patients who presented with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We compared the medical records of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD and history of syncope to those of a similar group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and mortality in each group during follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95%CI) (no difference between groups). There was no significant difference in gender or age. Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction rate (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), experienced more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), and received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2%, P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions: Patients presenting with syncope before ICD implantation seemed to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No differences in mortality were observed

 

Background: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) insertion is performed routinely. Recently this practice is being reconsidered due to doubts about its ability to improve ICD efficacy and evidence that survival may not be affected by the test.

Objectives: To compare the outcome of ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing and those in whom no testing was performed.

Methods: A total of 213 eligible patients were implanted with an ICD between 2004 and 2009. DFT testing was performed in 80. We compared total mortality, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks, and anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) events between DFT and non-DFT patients during a follow-up of 2 years.

Results: On comparing the DFT and non-DFT groups, we found a 2 year mortality rate of 7.5% versus 8.3%, respectively (P = 0.8). Furthermore, 20.7% of patients in the DFT group and 12.4% in the non-DFT group had at least one episode of ICD shock (P = 0.15). With regard to ICD treatment (ICD shocks or ATP events), 57.7% in the DFT group and 64.2% in the non-DFT group received appropriate treatments (P = 0.78).

Conclusions: No significant differences in the incidence of 2 year mortality or percentage of ICD treatment emerged between the DFT and non-DFT groups.