Sudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmias are a global health issue. Recently, a new guideline for the management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death has been... Show moreSudden cardiac death and ventricular arrhythmias are a global health issue. Recently, a new guideline for the management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death has been published by the European Society of Cardiology that serves as an update to the 2015 guideline on this topic. This review focuses on 10 novel key aspects of the current guideline: As new aspects, public basic life support and access to defibrillators are guideline topics. Recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation of patients with ventricular arrhythmias are structured according to frequently encountered clinical scenarios. Management of electrical storm has become a new focus. In addition, genetic testing and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging significantly gained relevance for both diagnostic evaluation and risk stratification. New algorithms for antiarrhythmic drug therapy aim at improving safe drug use. The new recommendations reflect increasing relevance of catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias, especially in patients without structural heart disease or stable coronary artery disease with only mildly impaired ejection fraction and haemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardias. Regarding sudden cardiac death risk stratification, risk calculators for laminopathies, and long QT syndrome are now considered besides the already established risk calculator for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Generally, ‘new’ risk markers beyond left ventricular ejection fraction are increasingly considered for recommendations on primary preventive implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Furthermore, new recommendations for diagnosis of Brugada syndrome and management of primary electrical disease have been included. With many comprehensive flowcharts and practical algorithms, the new guideline takes a step towards a user-oriented reference book. Show less
Zeppenfeld, K.; Tfelt-Hansen, J.; Riva, M. de; Winkel, B.G.; Behr, E.R.; Blom, N.A.; ... ; ESC Scientific Document Group 2022
Aims This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with... Show moreAims This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation.Methods and results We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality.Conclusion Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed. Show less
