Impact of signal-averaged electrocardiography findings on appropriate shocks in prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND

Appropriate shock therapy is associated with subsequent all-cause death in heart failure (HF) patients who receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. To evaluate the impact of signal-averaged electrocardiography (SAECG) findings on appropriate shocks in prophylactic ICD patients with nonischemic systolic HF.

METHODS

We studied 86 patients with nonischemic HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% who underwent new ICD implantation for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. We excluded patients who had a previously implanted permanent pacemaker and patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy with an ICD. SAECG was performed before implantation. Abnormal SAECG findings were defined if 2 of the following 3 conditions were identified: filtered QRS duration (fQRS) ≥ 114 ms, root-mean-square voltage during the last 40 ms of the fQRS (RMS 40) < 20 μV, and duration of the low-amplitude potentials < 40 μV (LAS 40) > 38 ms; additionally, patients with a QRS complex ≥ 120 ms who met both the RMS 40 and LAS 40 criteria were also considered to have abnormal SAECG findings. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of appropriate shock after implantation of the ICD. The secondary outcomes were the first occurrence of inappropriate shock and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients met the criteria for abnormal SAECG findings (49%). During a median follow-up period of 61 months, 17 patients (20%) died, 24 (28%) received appropriate shock therapy, and 19 (22%) received inappropriate shock therapy. There was a significantly higher incidence of appropriate shocks in patients with abnormal SAECG findings than in those with normal SAECG findings (log-rank test, p = 0.025). Multivariate analysis revealed that abnormal SAECG findings were independently associated with the occurrence of appropriate shock (hazard ratio 2.67, 95% confidential interval 1.14-6.26). However, abnormal SAECG findings were not related to inappropriate shock. There was no difference in the incidence of all-cause death between patients with abnormal and normal SAECG findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that abnormal SAECG findings are associated with a high probability of appropriate shocks in prophylactic ICD patients with nonischemic systolic HF.