My (evidence-based) approach to post MI VT
Raja Selvaraj, JIPMER
Introduction
Not covering
Acute management
non-device management
non sustained VT
Covering
Sustained VT late after MI
severe LV dysfunction
mild LV dysfunction
VT/VF early after MI
within 48 hours
after 48 hours
Guidelines
ACC / AHA practice guidelines - 2008 (2012 update)
ACCF / AHA / HRS Appropriate use criteria 2013
Ventricular arrhythmias early after MI
Scenario
36 male
VF on second day - defibrillated
LVEF 30%
No indication as per guidelines
Rationale
Related to reversible trigger
Does not affect long term outcome
ICD implant not indicated on this basis
Not benign !
AIVR - benign
Primary VF - poor acute outcome
But does not impact long term outcome
Fast MI registry - 5 year analysis of outcomes
Higher early mortality
Long term outcome not affected
Appropriate use criteria
Wearable defibrillator
Summary
Aggressive short term management indicated
By itself not an indication for ICD implant
Can consider, especially with reduced EF, especially after revascularization
Role for wearable defibrillator
VT / VF after 48 hours
Secondary prevention indication
Need ICD implantation
No need to wait for secondary prevention
Indicator of extensive myocardial damage
Poor in-hospital outcome and 1 yr survival
Sustained VT late post MI
Scenario
48 male
AWMI 4 years back
Presents with sustained VT / syncope / cardioversion
LVEF 35%
Management
ICD
Antiarrhythmic drugs / RF ablation ?
CAG ?
Single / dual chamber device?
Single coil / dual coil ?
Defibrillation threshold testing ?
ICD implantation
Guidelines
Class I A - Cardiac arrest due to VF / unstable VT
Class I B - Stable or unstable VT
Evidence
Ref: Connolly et al. Metaanalysis of ICD secondary prevention trials
CAG
Polymorphic VT / VF can be due to reversible ischemia
Sustained monomorphic VT not due to ischemia
Modest elevation of biomarkers does not indicate ischemia
Re test after 3 months if possibly reversible after revascularization
Anti-arrhythmic drugs
ICD does not prevent VT
ICD is not a treament for VT
Amiodarone reduces recurrences, low proarrhythmic risk
But amiodarone doesn't save lives
Ablation
Significant reduction in recurrences when used as first line
Superior to AAD with failed amio
Does not reduce mortality
Ablation as first line
Ablation as first line
Ablation after recurrence on AAD
Ablation after recurrence on AAD
Ablation after recurrence on AAD
Summary
ICD implantation indicated
Need AAD / RFA to reduce recurrences
Amiodarone AAD of choice
If AAD chosen initially, RFA for recurrence
Sustained VT late post MI with mild LV dysfunction
Scenario 3
54 male
IWMI 6 years back
walk-in VT
LVEF 45%
What do the guidelines say?
Hemodynamically unstable sustained VT / VF - class I A
Structural heart disease, stable sustained VT - class I B
Sustained VT with normal or near normal LV function - class IIa C
ICD secondary prevention trials metaanalysis
29 implants to save one life per year of follow up
Benefit after 3 years?
Increase in survival by 1/3 years after 6 years of follow up
Importance of EF
Beta blockers in secondary prevention
Ref: Connolly et al. Metaanalysis of ICD secondary prevention trials
Appropriate use criteria
Summary - My approach
Remote MI, severe LV dysfunction, VT/VF - ICD
Remote MI, moderate LV dysfunction, VT - AAD / abl, ICD
Reducing recurrence - AAD as first line
Recurrence on AAD - Ablation rather than escalate
Lot of grey areas, weigh evidence, involve patient in decision making