Ventricular arrhythmia without acute coronary syndrome as an indication for invasive coronary angiography

Abstract Background In the clinical setting of acute coronary syndrome, ventricular arrhythmia is a validated indication for urgent invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, the indication for ICA in patients with ventricular arrhythmia but no acute coronary syndrome is less clear. This study aimed to determine the incidence of occlusive coronary artery disease (CAD) in such patients and to evaluate the association of arrhythmia subtypes and ICA findings with survival. Methods This study included 309 patients who underwent ICA due to documented ventricular arrhythmia but no acute coronary syndrome between January 2004 and October 2017. Subtypes of arrhythmia and findings from ICA were correlated to outcome. Results Overall, 309 patients [240 male (78%) 69 female (22%), mean age 68 ± 11 y] with the evidence of ventricular arrhythmia were included. The documented ventricular arrhythmia were sustained ventricular tachycardia [VT; N= 140 (45.3%)], non-sustained ventricular tachycardia [nsVT; N= 97 (31.4%)], ventricular extrasystoles [VES; N= 72 (23.3%)]. A history of CAD was documented in 164 (53%) patients. The ICA detected a new CAD [N= 38 (12%)] or significant progression of known CAD [N= 72 (23%)] in 110 (36%) patients. Out of these patients 91 (83%) were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), four (4%) were treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The other 199 (64%) patients showed no progression of a known CAD [N= 92 (30%)] or no CAD [N= 107 (34%)] without significant progression. During a median follow-up time of 42 months (IQR 18-60), 44 (14.2%) patients died. The subtype of ventricular arrhythmia was associated to prognosis (figure 1). In all subgroups (VT, nsVT, VES), the survival analysis revealed no difference between patients with new CAD or progression of CAD on the one hand and those without CAD or progression on the other (VT: p = 0.70; nsVT: p = 0.65; VES: p = 0.14). Furthermore in all subgroups (VT, nsVT, VES), the survival analysis found no difference between patients with a specific treatment of CAD (PCI or CABG) and those without (VT: p = 0.37; nsVT: p = 0.95; VES: p = 0.07). Conclusion CAD is diagnosed in a relevant proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmia but no evidence of an acute coronary syndrome. However, neither the successful detection of a new CAD or the progression of a known CAD nor the specific treatment (PCI or CABG) of a detected significant CAD had an impact on survival outcome. This challenges ventricular arrhythmia as an indication for ICA.Figure 1:Survival Curves