Arrhythmic prognosis according to left ventricular systolic dysfunction severity in cardiac sarcoidosis

B Michelle Kim,Daniel Sykora,Andrew N Rosenbaum,Enas Ahmed,Robert A Churchill,Melanie Bratcher,Mohamed Y Elwazir,John P Bois,John R Giudicessi,Alan M Sugrue,Ammar M Killu,Suraj Kapa,Abhishek J Deshmukh,Samuel J Asirvatham,Leslie T Cooper,Omar F Abou Ezzeddine,Konstantinos C Siontis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.08.049
IF: 6.779
2024-08-28
Heart Rhythm
Abstract:Background: Current guidelines present varying classes of recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) utilization in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the ventricular arrhythmia risk in CS patients with ICDs and varying degrees of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Methods: The study included CS patients with an ICD and LVEF <50% at index evaluation. The primary outcome was survival free of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) after ICD implantation and was assessed comparatively for LVEF ≤35% vs 36%-49% and for primary vs secondary prevention ICD indication. Results: The study included 61 patients (median age 57 years; 61% male) with LVEF 36%-49% (n = 23) or LVEF ≤35% (n = 38). An ICD was implanted for secondary prevention in 24% and 44% of the LVEF ≤35% and 36%-49% groups, respectively (P = .11). The primary outcome did not differ between the 2 groups in univariable analysis (LVEF ≤35% vs 36%-49%: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.82; P = .67). In multivariable analysis, secondary prevention ICD indication was the only significant predictor of incident sustained VT/VF (HR 2.86; 95% CI 1.23-6.67; P = .015). Mean sustained VT/VF event burden was higher in the secondary compared with the primary prevention ICD patients (0.47 vs 0.11 events per patient-year; P = .005) but did not differ significantly between LVEF ≤35% and 36%-49% patients. Conclusion: CS patients with ICD indications and LVEF 36%-49% carry similarly high arrhythmic risk as those with LVEF ≤35%. Patients with secondary prevention ICDs have the highest overall risk.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?