Competing Risks for Monomorphic versus Non-Monomorphic Ventricular Arrhythmias in Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Recipients: Global Electrical Heterogeneity and Clinical Outcomes (GEHCO) Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Ablation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MMVT) has been shown to reduce shock frequency and improve survival. We aimed to compare cause-specific risk factors of MMVT and polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (PVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) and to develop predictive models. METHODS:The multicenter retrospective cohort study included 2,668 patients (age 63.1±13.0 y; 23% female; 78% white; 43% nonischemic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction 28.2±11.1%). Cox models were adjusted for demographic characteristics, heart failure severity and treatment, device programming, and ECG metrics. Global electrical heterogeneity was measured by spatial QRS-T angle (QRSTa), spatial ventricular gradient elevation (SVGel), azimuth, magnitude (SVGmag), and sum absolute QRST integral (SAIQRST). We compared the out-of-sample performance of the lasso and elastic net for Cox proportional hazards and the Fine-Gray competing risk model. RESULTS:During a median follow-up of 4 years, 359 patients experienced their first sustained MMVT with appropriate ICD therapy, and 129 patients had their first PVT/VF with appropriate ICD shock. The risk of MMVT was associated with wider QRSTa (HR 1.16; 95%CI 1.01-1.34), larger SVGel (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.05-1.30), and smaller SVGmag (HR 0.74; 95%CI 0.63-0.86) and SAIQRST (HR 0.84; 95%CI 0.71-0.99). The best-performing 3-year competing risk Fine-Gray model for MMVT (ROC(t)AUC 0.728; 95%CI 0.668-0.788) identified high-risk (> 50%) patients with 75% sensitivity, 65% specificity, and PVT/VF prediction model had ROC(t)AUC 0.915 (95%CI 0.868-0.962), both satisfactory calibration. CONCLUSION:We developed and validated models to predict the competing risks of MMVT or PVT/VF that could inform procedural planning and future RCTs of prophylactic VT ablation.