Vasovagal syncope: a prospective, randomized, crossover evaluation of the effect of propranolol, nadolol and placebo on syncope recurrence and patients’ well-being

AbstractObjectivesWe sought to assess the relative therapeutic efficacy of propranolol, nadolol and placebo in recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS).BackgroundCentral and peripheral mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of VVS. Propranolol, nadolol and placebo have different sites of action on central and/or peripheral mechanisms. It has not yet been clarified whether one of the aforementioned treatments is more efficient than the others in reducing clinical episodes and exerting a beneficial effect on patients’ well-being.MethodsWe studied 30 consecutive patients with recurrent VVS and a positive head-up tilt test. All were serially and randomly assigned to propranolol, nadolol or placebo. Therapy with each drug lasted three months. On the day of drug crossover, patients reported the total number of syncopal and presyncopal attacks during the previous period. They also gave a general assessment of their quality of life, taking into account: 1) symptom recurrence; 2) drug side effects; and 3) their personal well-being during therapy (scale 0 to 4: 0 = very bad/discontinuation; 1 = bad; 2 = good; 3 = very good; 4 = excellent). At the end of the nine-month follow-up period, they reported whether they preferred a specific treatment over the others.ResultsSpontaneous syncopal and presyncopal episode recurrence during each three-month follow-up period was reduced by all drugs tested (analysis of variance [ANOVA]: chi-square = 67.4, p < 0.0001 for syncopal attacks; chi-square = 60.1, p < 0.0001 for presyncopal attacks) No differences were observed in the recurrence of syncope and presyncope among the three drugs. All drugs improved the patients’ well-being (ANOVA: chi-square = 61.9, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsPropranolol, nadolol and placebo are equally effective treatments in VVS, as demonstrated by a reduction in the recurrence of syncope and presyncope, as well as an improvement in the patients’ well-being

Repeating noninvasive risk stratification improves prediction of outcome in ICD patients.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive risk stratification aims to detect abnormalities in the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ventricular arrhythmias. We studied the predictive value of repeating risk stratification in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: The EUTrigTreat clinical study was a prospective multicenter trial including ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and arrhythmogenic heart disease. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (LVEF), premature ventricular complexes >400/24 hr (PVC), non-negative microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA), and abnormal heart rate turbulence (HRT) were considered high risk. Tests were repeated within 12 months after inclusion. Adjusted Cox regression analysis was performed for mortality and appropriate ICD shocks. RESULTS: In total, 635 patients had analyzable baseline data with a median follow-up of 4.4 years. Worsening of LVEF was associated with increased mortality (HR 3.59, 95% CI 1.17-11.04), as was consistent abnormal HRT (HR 8.34, 95%CI 1.06-65.54). HRT improvement was associated with improved survival when compared to consistent abnormal HRT (HR 0.10, 95%CI 0.01-0.82). For appropriate ICD shocks, a non-negative MTWA test or high PVC count at any moment was associated with increased arrhythmic risk independent of the evolution of test results (worsening: HR 3.76 (95%CI 1.43-9.88) and HR 2.50 (95%CI 1.15-5.46); improvement: HR 2.80 (95%CI 1.03-7.61) and HR 2.45 (95%CI 1.07-5.62); consistent: HR 2.47 (95%CI 0.95-6.45) and HR 2.40 (95%CI 1.33-4.33), respectively). LVEF improvement was associated with a lower arrhythmic risk (HR 0.34, 95%CI 0.12-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Repeating LVEF and HRT improved the prediction of mortality, whereas stratification of ventricular arrhythmias may be improved by repeating LVEF measurements, MTWA and ECG Holter monitoring.peerReviewe

Tolerance Mechanisms in Response to a Chronic Cadmium Exposure Developed by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Aims: The EUTrigTreat clinical study has been designed as a prospective multicentre observational study and aims to (i) risk stratify patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for mortality and shock risk using multiple novel and established risk markers, (ii) explore a link between repolarization biomarkers and genetics of ion (Ca(2+), Na(+), K(+)) metabolism, (iii) compare the results of invasive and non-invasive electrophysiological (EP) testing, (iv) assess changes of non-invasive risk stratification tests over time, and (v) associate arrythmogenomic risk through 19 candidate genes. Methods and results: Patients with clinical ICD indication are eligible for the trial. Upon inclusion, patients will undergo non-invasive risk stratification, including beat-to-beat variability of repolarization (BVR), T-wave alternans, T-wave morphology variables, ambient arrhythmias from Holter, heart rate variability, and heart rate turbulence. Non-invasive or invasive programmed electrical stimulation will assess inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias, with the latter including recordings of monophasic action potentials and assessment of restitution properties. Established candidate genes are screened for variants. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality, while one of the secondary endpoints is ICD shock risk. A mean follow-up of 3.3 years is anticipated. Non-invasive testing will be repeated annually during follow-up. It has been calculated that 700 patients are required to identify risk predictors of the primary endpoint, with a possible increase to 1000 patients based on interim risk analysis. Conclusion: The EUTrigTreat clinical study aims to overcome current shortcomings in sudden cardiac death risk stratification and to answer several related research questions. The initial patient recruitment is expected to be completed in July 2012, and follow-up is expected to end in September 2014.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209494.peerReviewe

Noninvasive risk factors for the prediction of inducibility on programmed ventricular stimulation in post-myocardial infarction patients with an ejection fraction &gt;= 40% at risk for sudden cardiac arrest: Insights from the PRESERVE-EF study

Background In the PRESERVE-EF study, a two-step sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk stratification approach to detect post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) &gt;= 40% at risk for major arrhythmic events (MAEs) was used. Seven noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) were extracted from a 24-h ambulatory electrocardiography (AECG) and a 45-min resting recording. Patients with at least one NIRF present were referred for invasive programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) and inducible patients received an Implantable Cardioverter - Defibrillator (ICD). Methods In the present study, we evaluated the performance of the NIRFs, as they were described in the PRESERVE-EF study protocol, in predicting a positive PVS. In the PRESERVE-EF study, 152 out of 575 patients underwent PVS and 41 of them were inducible. For the present analysis, data from these 152 patients were analyzed. Results Among the NIRFs examined, the presence of signal averaged ECG-late potentials (SAECG-LPs) &gt;= 2/3 and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) &gt;= 1 eposode/24 h cutoff points were important predictors of a positive PVS study, demonstrating in the logistic regression analysis odds ratios 2.285 (p = .027) and 2.867 (p = .006), respectively. A simple risk score based on the above cutoff points in combination with LVEF &lt; 50% presented high sensitivity but low specificity for a positive PVS. Conclusion Cutoff points of NSVT &gt;= 1 episode/24 h and SAECG-LPs &gt;= 2/3 in combination with a LVEF &lt; 50% were important predictors of inducibility. However, the final decision for an ICD implantation should be based on a positive PVS, which is irreplaceable in risk stratification

Nocturnal respiratory rate predicts ICD benefit:a prospective, controlled, multicentre cohort study

Abstract Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. ICD implantation decisions are currently based on reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF≤35%). However, in some patients, the non-arrhythmic death risk predominates thus diminishing ICD-therapy benefits. Based on previous observations, we tested the hypothesis that compared to the others, patients with nocturnal respiratory rate (NRR) ≥18 breaths per minute (brpm) benefit less from prophylactic ICD implantations. Methods: This prospective cohort study was a pre-defined sub-study of EU-CERT-ICD trial conducted at 44 centers in 15 EU countries between May 12, 2014, and September 6, 2018. Patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy were included if meeting primary prophylactic ICD implantation criteria. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. NRR was assessed blindly from pre-implantation 24-hour Holters. Multivariable models and propensity stratification evaluated the interaction between NRR and the ICD mortality effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0206419). Findings: Of the 2,247 EU-CERT-ICD patients, this sub-study included 1,971 with complete records. In 1,363 patients (61.7 (12) years; 244 women) an ICD was implanted; 608 patients (63.2 (12) years; 108 women) were treated conservatively. During a median 2.5-year follow-up, 202 (14.8%) and 95 (15.6%) patients died in the ICD and control groups, respectively. NRR statistically significantly interacted with the ICD mortality effect (p = 0.0070). While the 1,316 patients with NRR&lt;18 brpm showed a marked ICD benefit on mortality (adjusted HR 0.529 (95% CI 0.376–0.746); p = 0.0003), no treatment effect was demonstrated in 655 patients with NRR≥18 brpm (adjusted HR 0.981 (95% CI 0.669–1.438); p = 0.9202). Interpretation: In the EU-CERT-ICD trial, patients with NRR≥18 brpm showed limited benefit from primary prophylactic ICD implantation. Those with NRR&lt;18 brpm benefitted substantially. Funding: European Community's 7th Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 (602299