The Wide Spectrum of Ventricular Arrhythmias: From out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to advanced in-hospital treatment

Cardiac stereotactic body radiation therapy (cSBRT) is a non-invasive treatment modality that has been recently reported as an effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmias refractory to medical therapy and catheter ablation. The approach leverages tools developed and refined in radiation oncology, where experience has been accumulated in the treatment of a wide variety of malignant conditions. However, important differences exist between rapidly dividing malignant tumor cells and fully differentiated myocytes in pathologically remodeled ventricular myocardium, which represent the respective radiation targets. Despite its initial success, little is known about the radiobiology of the anti-arrhythmic effect cSBRT. Pre-clinical data indicates a late fibrotic effect of that appears between 3 and 4 months following cSBRT, which may result in conduction slowing and block. However, there is clear clinical evidence of an anti-arrhythmic effect of cSBRT that precedes the appearance of radiation induced fibrosis for which the mechanism is unclear. In addition, the data to date suggests that even the late anti-arrhythmic effect of cSBRT is not fully attributable to radiation.-induced fibrosis. Pre-clinical data has identified upregulation of proteins expected to result in both increased cell-to-cell coupling and excitability in the early post cSBRT period and demonstrated an associated increase in myocardial conduction velocity. These observations indicate a complex response to radiotherapy and highlight the lack of clarity regarding the different stages of the anti-arrhythmic mechanism of cSBRT. It may be speculated that in the future cSBRT therapy could be planned to deliver both early and late radiation effects titrated to optimize the combined anti-arrhythmic efficacy of the treatment. In addition to these outstanding mechanistic questions, the optimal patient selection, radiation modality, radiation dose and treatment planning strategy are currently being investigated. In this review, we consider the structural and functional effect of radiation on myocardium and the possible anti-arrhythmic mechanisms of cSBRT. Review of the published data highlights the exciting prospects for the development of knowledge and understanding in this area in which so many outstanding questions exist.

Background: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a global public health issue, accounting for 10–20% of deaths in industrialized countries. Identification of modifiable risk factors may reduce SCD incidence.

Methods: This umbrella review systematically evaluates published meta-analyses of observational and randomized controlled trials (RCT) for the association of modifiable risk and protective factors of SCD.

Results: Fifty-five meta-analyses were included in the final analysis, of which 31 analyzed observational studies and 24 analyzed RCTs. Five associations of meta-analyses of observational studies presented convincing evidence, including three risk factors [diabetes mellitus (DM), smoking, and early repolarization pattern (ERP)] and two protective factors [implanted cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and physical activity]. Meta-analyses of RCTs identified five protective factors with a high level of evidence: ICDs, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), beta-blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in patients with HF. On the contrary, other established, significant protective agents [i.e., amiodarone and statins along with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in heart failure (HF)], did not show credibility. Likewise, risk factors as left ventricular ejection fraction in HF, and left ventricular hypertrophy, non-sustain ventricular tachycardia, history of syncope or aborted SCD in pediatric patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, presented weak or no evidence.

Conclusions: Lifestyle risk factors (physical activity, smoking), comorbidities like DM, and electrocardiographic features like ERP constitute modifiable risk factors of SCD. Alternatively, the use of MRA, beta-blockers, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and ICD in patients with HF are credible protective factors. Further investigation targeted in specific populations will be important for reducing the burden of SCD.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020216363, PROSPERO CRD42020216363.

Introduction: In the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results.

Results: Total 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26–15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12–0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009–0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12–0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD.

Conclusions: The choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.