Programmed ventricular stimulation for risk stratification in patients with myocardial scarring and an ejection fraction above or equal to 40%

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the leading causes of death, particularly among patients with myocardial scars. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are recommended in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. Another recognised indication is the induction of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) during programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) in post-myocardial infarction patients with non-sustained VT and a LVEF between 35% and 40%. However, no recommendation exists to guide the use of prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with less altered LVEF, even though they represent the majority of SCDs. Purpose We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of PVS in patients with myocardial scars and a relatively preserved LVEF (≥ 40%). Methods Patients with evidence of a chronic myocardial scar and a LVEF ≥ 40%, who underwent PVS at two hospital centers were considered for inclusion. Ischemic and non-ischemic myocardial scars were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a Major Arrhythmic Event (MAE), namely SCD, clinical VT/ventricular fibrillation, or appropriate ICD therapy. Results 134 patients were included (mean age 62.4 ± 12.5 years, LVEF 54.7 ± 8.6 %). Indication for PVS was mostly non-sustained VT and/or syncope (84%). Post-myocardial infarction patients represented about half of the cases (53%). Inducibility during PVS was observed in 17 patients (13%). There was a nonsignificant trend towards higher inducibility rates in ischemic versus nonischemic scars (17% and 8%, respectively; p-value = 0.1). Of these patients, 15 received an ICD (88%). Over a mean follow-up of 49 (±42) months, a MAE occurred in 7 patients (41.2%) with positive PVS, versus 4 patients (3.4%) with negative PVS. MAE-free survival at 10 years was 91% and 43% in PVS-negative and PVS-positive patients, respectively (p-value < 0.001). One SCD occurred in a PVS-positive patient who denied prophylactic ICD implantation. Inducibility during PVS provided a 64% sensitivity and a 97% negative predictive value (PV) to predict the occurrence of MAE (specificity 92%, positive PV 41%). Conclusion PVS is a useful tool to discriminate patients with myocardial scars and LVEF ≥ 40% at increased arrhythmic risk. Effective utilisation of ICD may be anticipated in case of positive PVS, while non-inducible patients are at lower MAE risk.