Distribution and prognostic impact of coronary artery disease and nonischemic cardiomyopathies in patients with electrical storm.

BACKGROUND

he distribution and prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) in ES are still under debate.

METHODS

Consecutive ES patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were included retrospectively from 2002 to 2016. Three analyses were applied to characterize ES patients: (a) ES patients without CAD (non-CAD), (b) ES patients with CAD (CAD), and (c) diagnostic findings assessed by coronary angiography (CA) at the time of ES (immediate CA). CAD was compared with non-CAD ES patients, and progressive CAD was compared with stable CAD ES patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 2.5 years. Secondary endpoints were the composite endpoint of first recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies, and recurrence of ES (ES-R) at 2.5 years.

RESULTS

Within a total of 87 consecutive ES patients. CAD was present in more than two-thirds (67%). However, only 52% patients underwent immediate CA at the time of ES. Here, 84% had CAD, of which 39% revealed progressive CAD with the need of target vessel revascularization (TVR) or cardiac transplantation ( n = 1). At long-term follow-up, neither the presence (or absence) of CAD (41% vs. 34%; log rank P = 0.708) nor of progressive CAD (33% vs. 26%; log rank P = 0.372) was associated with all-cause mortality at 2.5 years, and further secondary endpoints including the composite of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias plus appropriate ICD therapies, or ES-R.

CONCLUSION

In ES patients, CAD was more common than non-CAD-related cardiac diseases, accompanied by an underinvestigated rate of CA despite increasing rates of progressive CAD. CAD had no prognostic impact in ES.