IMR Press / RCM / Volume 23 / Issue 7 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2307246
Open Access Review
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Assessment in Chronic Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: An Unmet Need?
Show Less
1 Arrhytmia Section, Cardiology Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
*Correspondence: beatrizjg86@gmail.com (Beatriz Jáuregui)
Academic Editor: Sophie Mavrogeni
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23(7), 246; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2307246
Submitted: 1 April 2022 | Revised: 21 May 2022 | Accepted: 27 May 2022 | Published: 28 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Cardiology)
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) constitutes a major public health issue, directly involved in the prevalence and incidence of heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Severe impairment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is considered a high-risk marker for SCD, conditioning the criteria that determine an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement in primary prevention according to current clinical guidelines. However, its sensitivity and specificity values for the prediction of SCD in ICM may not be highest. Myocardial characterization using cardiac magnetic resonance with late gadolinium enhancement (CMR-LGE) sequences has made it possible to answer clinically relevant questions that are currently not assessable with LVEF alone. There is growing scientific evidence in favor of the relationship between fibrosis evaluated with CMR and the appearance of VA/SCD in patients with ICM. This evidence should make us contemplate a more realistic clinical value of LVEF in our daily clinical decision-making.

Keywords
cardiac magnetic resonance
ischemic cardiomyopathy
left ventricular ejection fraction
myocardial infarction
arrhythmogenic substrate
ventricular tachycardia
sudden cardiac death
1. Introduction

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and its consequences are estimated to be the cause of at least 80% of sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) (around 240,000–280,000 per year) in Western countries [1]. From autopsy data, around 30% of all the ICM-related SCDs lack acute coronary findings, but are instead linked to the presence of an old ischemic myocardial scar [2]. The biological processes of myocardial healing, left ventricular (LV) remodeling and scar changes involve the development of a potential arrhythmogenic substrate capable of causing reentrant ventricular arrhythmias (VA), the main cause of arrhythmic SCD in chronic ICM [3].

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) constitutes the final VA leading to arrhythmic SCD. Polymorphic ventricular tachycardias (VTs) are usually related to acute ischemia and can quickly degenerate into VF [4]. Monomorphic VTs (MVTs) are due to anatomical/functional reentry related to the presence of myocardial scar/fibrosis, and may degenerate into VF owing to primary rhythm disorganization, hemodynamic instability and secondary global ischemia. In patients with chronic ICM, VAs causing SCD are mostly reentrant MVTs [5] that require the presence of a histologic substrate for reentry. However, several external triggers may also be required for their initiation, such as neurohormonal alterations, mechanical factors (e.g., myocardial stretching in conditions of volume/pressure overload), and ionic alterations [6, 7].

Severe LV systolic dysfunction is considered a high-risk marker for SCD [8]. In current clinical practice guidelines [9, 10], the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% in chronic ICM is the criterion that determines an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement in primary prevention of SCD [11, 12]. However, only 20–30% of the patients included in randomized clinical trials on primary prevention receive appropriate ICD shocks after 4 years of follow-up, indicating limited positive predictive value of LVEF as a risk marker for SCD [11, 12]. In addition, approximately 65% ​​of patients with SCD have normal or only mildly depressed LV systolic function (i.e., LVEF between 35% and 50%) [13, 14, 15]. Therefore, severe LV dysfunction alone is a not sufficiently specific marker for SCD, although it could be useful when used with other predictors or as part of a multivariable risk score including various clinical parameters, such as age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, renal function, QRS width, coexistence of atrial fibrillation, VT inducibility during electrophysiological studies (EPS), myocardial hypertrophy, heart rate variability, etc. [16, 17, 18, 19]. However, such scoring algorithms have not yet been validated in large prospective series. Besides, these markers are not very specific when it comes to discriminating the risk of SCD versus the risk of non-sudden death [16, 17, 20, 21].

2. Conventional Arrhythmia Risk Assessment in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy
2.1 Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Mortality and SCD risk increase when LVEF decreases below 50% [22, 23], and particularly when it becomes <40% [24]. On the other hand, due to the improvement in reperfusion therapies, there are relatively few patients with very low LVEF after an acute coronary event [25, 26, 27]. However, there is no evidence of a cause-effect relationship between an abnormal LVEF and the occurrence of SCD. In fact, although the absolute risk of SCD is higher in patients with lower LVEF, the total number of SCDs is higher in patients with higher LVEF [28]. In addition, current LVEF values used to define high-risk populations (typically <35%) have poor sensitivity, failing to identify up to 50% of patients at risk for SCD [29].

Current evidence for the choice of LVEF as the main criterion for ICD implantation in primary prevention in patients with ICM is based on the classical trials MADIT-I and II [11, 30], CABG-PATCH [31], MUSTT [32], DINAMIT [33], and SCD-HeFT [12]. Although in the latest clinical practice guidelines the presence of LVEF <35% remains the criterion that currently determines implantation [11, 12], it has not been shown to be a parameter either sensitive or specific for the prediction of SCD in ICM [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. In the recent PRESERVE EF study [40] it was found that 9 of 575 patients (1.6%) with ICM and LVEF >40% (mean 50.8%) had appropriate ICD therapies due to sustained VA after a mean clinical follow-up of 32 months. These patients, who did not have a standard indication for ICD implantation in primary prevention, had been indicated for ICD because they had some non-invasive additional risk factor (see below) and were inducible during EPS.

2.2 Other Parameters

Traditionally, other clinical variables apart from LVEF have been tested in order to improve the risk stratification of VA/SCD in patients with ICM. Some of these variables have been early detection of potential triggers (premature ventricular complexes and non-sustained VTs), presence of late potentials on the signal-averaged ECG, T wave alternans, inducibility during EPS, analysis of autonomic functional markers, or the use of multivariable clinical models. The available evidence has confirmed that none of them was sufficiently reliable for arrhythmic risk stratification [19, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]. Therefore, their use cannot be recommended for making relevant clinical decisions.

3. Current Status and Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Arrhythmia Risk Assessment in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy
3.1 Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance to Calculate Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

As previously mentioned, LVEF is a suboptimal risk marker for VA and SCD, and yet it constitutes the main criterion on which current clinical practice guidelines base the indication for ICD implantation in primary prevention of SCD [11, 12]. LVEF has been classically obtained using echocardiography, which has shown to generally overestimate LVEF by 3–7% compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), a more reproducible technique [50]. These differences might justify a better risk stratification using CMR [51, 52], despite no published ICD trial has included the use of CMR-derived LVEF. On the other hand, there is evidence [53] suggesting that the use of a weighted CMR score after a ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, including CMR-LVEF and other variables (myocardial salvage index, microvascular obstruction, and myocardial hemorrhage), was independently associated with major adverse cardiovascular events, and may provide incremental prognostic stratification as compared with GRACE score and echo-LVEF [53].

3.2 Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance to Identify the Arrhythmogenic Substrate

Far beyond LVEF, other clinical predictors for arrhythmia events may be found; for example, in a recent meta-analysis including 17 studies with LVEF values ranging from 25 to 59% [54], the presence of a coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO), particularly when affecting the infarct-related artery, was associated with a 1.68-fold increase in the occurrence of VT/VF or appropriate ICD therapy. Aiming to non-invasively characterize the post-infarction myocardial injury, cardiac magnetic resonance with late gadolinium enhancement (CMR-LGE) has made it possible to answer clinically relevant questions that are currently not assessable with LVEF alone or with the use of other non-invasive imaging modalities. In fact, the diagnostic and prognostic role of CMR in ICM has already been broadly recognized in more recent articles, guidelines and consensus documents [55, 56, 57, 58]. Numerous studies have shown a link between the presence of macroscopic fibrosis evaluated with CMR and the appearance of VA in patients with ICM. In a recent meta-analysis by Disertori et al. [59] including 2850 patients from 19 different studies, patients without LGE had an annual arrhythmia/SCD event rate of 1.7%, compared with an event rate of 8.6% per year in patients with LGE. Moreover, 100% of those with events had macroscopic fibrosis on CMR-LGE [59, 60]. This has been supported in modern, large prospective series of patients with ICM and non-ischemic etiologies [61].

The ability of CMR-LGE to detect myocardial fibrosis has been supported by histological correlation studies [62, 63]. The presence of slow and heterogeneous electrical conduction associated with fibrosis may favor reentry, increasing vulnerability to VT/VF onset [6, 64, 65, 66]. Areas with different levels of fibrosis coexist in the gray zone, heterogeneous tissue, or border zone (BZ), resulting in simultaneous regions of viable and non-viable myocardium, which can be identified with CMR-LGE [64]. In addition, heterogeneous tissue channels (HTC), or border zone channels (BZC), have been correlated with functional, slow conduction channels identifiable by endocardial voltage maps during electroanatomical mapping (EAM) [67, 68, 69, 70], as well as with the critical isthmuses of VT reentry circuits [71].

Despite the evidence that size and heterogeneity of the myocardial scar could be predictors of VA and mortality, it remains unknown whether CMR, beyond the use of LVEF, could facilitate the clinical decision-making in relation to arrhythmia risk stratification. In this sense, a previous prospective study by Klem et al. [72], based on a cohort of ischemic patients with a wide range of LVEF values, analyzed the risk of arrhythmic events: Patients with LVEF >30% and fibrosis >5% of total myocardial mass had a higher VA risk than those patients with LVEF >30% and small scars (<5%), but similar to that of patients with LVEF <30%. Similarly, those patients with LVEF <30% and fibrosis <5% had a risk of arrhythmic events similar to that of patients with LVEF >30%. More recently [73], the presence of myocardial fibrosis and the mass of heterogeneous tissue (a.k.a. BZ), both analyzed with CMR-LGE, were evaluated in relation to the occurrence of SCD and the composite event of SCD or VA. Of 947 patients analyzed retrospectively [73], there were 29 cases of SCD (2.96%) and 80 cases of SCD/VA (8.17%) after a median follow-up of 5.82 years. The visual presence of myocardial fibrosis or heterogeneous tissue on CMR was strongly associated with the appearance of SCD and the composite event. In contrast, the associations between LVEF <35% and the development of SCD, or the composite SCD/VA, were much weaker in a competing risk analysis [73]. In addition, all patients having events (SCD/VA) showed evident fibrosis on CMR. Furthermore, the cut-off point of LVEF <35% was very weakly associated with both the occurrence of SCD or the composite SCD/VA [73]. Additionally, from all the scar variables that can be assessed with CMR, the amount (mass) of BZ and, particularly, the amount of BZ mass being part of tissue corridors (BZC) appear to be the most powerful variables associated with the development of reentrant VA [74, 75].

Including CMR-derived variables, the currently ongoing European PROFID project will aim to develop a clinical prediction model for SCD in ICM in order to improve the selection of ICD candidates. Two randomized trials will validate the usefulness of this prediction model according to the LVEF (PROFID-Preserved, NCT04540289; and PROFID-Reduced, NCT04540354). The preliminary results presented in EHRA Congress 2022 indicate a potentially relevant role of CMR-LGE; particularly regarding the extent of scar and BZ. Therefore, un updated model including these variables is to be expected.

Apart from evaluating macroscopic fibrosis using LGE, CMR is also capable of assessing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis, which is related to adverse remodeling in patients with ICM [76, 77]. This is usually performed using T1-mapping techniques. Diffuse fibrosis has been shown to be an independent predictor of VA [78]. However, it should be remarked that T1-mapping is limited to just a single slice of myocardium, assuming that the diffuse fibrosis affects uniformly the remote myocardium. Therefore, more studies would be required to explore the possibilities of this method.

3.3 Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance during Ventricular Tachycardia Substrate Ablation Procedures

In addition to the aforementioned, it has recently been shown that the QRS morphology of potential inducible VTs and the location of the responsible circuit in each case can be accurately predicted using computer simulation models trained with CMR-LGE images from infarcted pigs [79]. This may suggest that our current post-processing methods for BZ analysis could eventually be complemented with even more sophisticated tools (computer models, machine learning, etc.) to identify reentrant circuits through CMR findings. Other studies have strongly supported the usefulness of CMR in identifying and characterizing the arrhythmogenic substrate in secondary prevention. Integrated 3D reconstructions of the scar obtained from CMR images are capable of accurately depicting not only the location of the arrhythmogenic substrate, but also its structure and the presence of BZC, which constitute the therapeutic target during substrate ablation procedures [80, 81, 82]. These studies have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes and better procedural efficiency when taking advantage of the CMR-derived data on the arrhythmogenic substrate.

4. Conclusions

There is growing scientific evidence in favor of the relationship between CMR-LGE findings and the appearance of VA/SCD, particularly in ICM but also in non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. This evidence should make us contemplate a more realistic clinical value of LVEF in our daily clinical decision-making. Nevertheless, additional studies are still required. Standardization of image acquisition methods and measurements, as well as analysis of the diagnostic performance of each evaluable scar-derived parameter are issues to be resolved. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of scar remodeling makes it difficult to set an appropriate time point for CMR acquisition [83]. Finally, there is an urgent need for reliable post-processing tools allowing reproducible analysis of raw CMR images. Undoubtedly, the key for diagnosis and prognosis in our patients lies within them.

Author Contributions

BJ conceived the topic and wrote the first version of the manuscript. NC, TO, CL-P and AA discussed the contents and significantly contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References
[1]
Davies MJ. Anatomic features in victims of sudden coronary death: Coronary artery pathology. Circulation. 1992; 85: I19–I24.
[2]
Farb A, Tang AL, Burke AP, Sessums L, Liang Y, Virmani R. Sudden Coronary Death: Frequency of active coronary lesions, inactive coronary lesions, and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1995; 92: 1701–1709.
[3]
Bonny A, Ditah I, Tonga N. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators after myocardial infarction. Cardiovascular Journal of Africa. 2009; 20: 223.
[4]
Carmeliet E. Cardiac Ionic Currents and Acute Ischemia: from Channels to Arrhythmias. Physiological Reviews. 1999; 79: 917–1017.
[5]
Callans D. Josephson’s Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology: Techniques and Interpretations. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia. 2020.
[6]
Wu T, Ong JJC, Hwang C, Lee JJ, Fishbein MC, Czer L, et al. Characteristics of wave fronts during ventricular fibrillation in human hearts with dilated cardiomyopathy: role of increased fibrosis in the generation of reentry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998; 32: 187–196.
[7]
Beuckelmann DJ, Näbauer M, Erdmann E. Alterations of K+ currents in isolated human ventricular myocytes from patients with terminal heart failure. Circulation Research. 1993; 73: 379–385.
[8]
Goldberger JJ, Cain ME, Hohnloser SH, Kadish AH, Knight BP, Lauer MS, et al. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation/Heart Rhythm Society Scientific Statement on Noninvasive Risk Stratification Techniques for Identifying Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology Committee on Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation. 2008; 118: 1497–1518.
[9]
Al-Khatib SM, Stevenson WG, Ackerman MJ, Bryant WJ, Callans DJ, Curtis AB, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm. 2018; 15: e190–e252.
[10]
Priori SG, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, Blom N, Borggrefe M, Camm J, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death the Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal. 2015; 36: 2793–2867.
[11]
Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, et al. Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection Fraction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002; 346: 877–883.
[12]
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 352: 225–237.
[13]
de Vreede-Swagemakers JJM, Gorgels APM, Dubois-Arbouw WI, van Ree JW, Daemen MJAP, Houben LGE, et al. Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the 1990s: a Population-Based Study in the Maastricht Area on Incidence, Characteristics and Survival. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1997; 30: 1500–1505.
[14]
Gorgels APM, Gijsbers C, De Vreede-Swagemakers J, Lousberg A, Wellens HJJ. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-the relevance of heart failure. The Maastricht Circulatory Arrest Registry. European Heart Journal. 2003; 24: 1204–1209.
[15]
Stecker EC, Vickers C, Waltz J, Socoteanu C, John BT, Mariani R, et al. Population-Based Analysis of Sudden Cardiac Death with and without Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Two-year findings from the Oregon sudden unexpected death study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006; 47: 1161–1166.
[16]
Buxton AE, Lee KL, Hafley GE, Pires LA, Fisher JD, Gold MR, et al. Limitations of Ejection Fraction for Prediction of Sudden Death Risk in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Lessons From the MUSTT Study Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007; 50: 1150–1157.
[17]
Buxton AE. Risk stratification for sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6: 836–847.
[18]
Goldenberg I, Vyas AK, Hall WJ, Moss AJ, Wang H, He H, et al. Risk Stratification for Primary Implantation of a Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients with Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 51: 288–296.
[19]
Levy WC, Lee KL, Hellkamp AS, Poole JE, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, et al. Maximizing Survival Benefit with Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in a Heart Failure Population. Circulation. 2009; 120: 835–842.
[20]
Adabag AS, Grandits GA, Prineas RJ, Crow RS, Bloomfield HE, Neaton JD. Relation of Heart Rate Parameters during Exercise Test to Sudden Death and all-Cause Mortality in Asymptomatic Men. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2008; 101: 1437–1443.
[21]
McLenachan JM, Dargie HJ. Left Ventricular Hypertrophy as a Factor in Arrhythmias and Sudden Death. American Journal of Hypertension. 1989; 2: 128–131.
[22]
Kusmirek SL, Gold MR. Sudden cardiac death: the role of risk stratification. American Heart Journal. 2007; 153: 25–33.
[23]
Sanz G, Castañer A, Betriu A, Magriña J, Roig E, Coll S, et al. Determinants of Prognosis in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. 1982; 306: 1065–1070.
[24]
The Multicenter Postinfarction Research Group. Risk Stratification and Survival after Myocardial Infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1983; 309: 331–336.
[25]
Halkin A, Stone GW, Dixon SR, Grines CL, Tcheng JE, Cox DA, et al. Impact and Determinants of Left Ventricular Function in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 96: 325–331.
[26]
Sjöblom J, Muhrbeck J, Witt N, Alam M, Frykman-Kull V. Evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction implications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator eligibility. Circulation. 2014; 130: 743–748.
[27]
Rouleau JL, Talajic M, Sussex B, Potvin L, Warnica W, Davies RF, et al. Myocardial infarction patients in the 1990s—their risk factors, stratification and survival in Canada: the Canadian assessment of myocardial infarction (CAMI) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1996; 27: 1119–1127.
[28]
Yap YG, Duong T, Bland JM, Malik M, Torp-Pedersen C, Køber L, et al. Optimising the dichotomy limit for left ventricular ejection fraction in selecting patients for defibrillator therapy after myocardial infarction. Heart. 2007; 93: 832–836.
[29]
Waks JW, Buxton AE. Risk Stratification for Sudden Cardiac Death after Myocardial Infarction. Annual Review of Medicine. 2018; 69: 147–164.
[30]
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H, et al. Improved Survival with an Implanted Defibrillator in Patients with Coronary Disease at High Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmia. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996; 335: 1933–1940.
[31]
Bigger JT. Prophylactic Use of Implanted Cardiac Defibrillators in Patients at High Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmias after Coronary-Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997; 337: 1569–1575.
[32]
Buxton AE, Lee KL, DiCarlo L, Gold MR, Greer GS, Prystowsky EN, et al. Electrophysiologic Testing to Identify Patients with Coronary Artery Disease who are at Risk for Sudden Death. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000; 342: 1937–1945.
[33]
Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P, Roberts RS, Hampton JR, Hatala R, et al. Prophylactic use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction: Commentary. New England Journal of Medicine. 2004; 351: 2481–2488.
[34]
Huikuri HV, Tapanainen JM, Lindgren K, Raatikainen P, Mäkikallio TH, Juhani Airaksinen KE, et al. Prediction of sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction in the beta-blocking era. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2003; 42: 652–658.
[35]
Mukharji J, Rude RE, Poole WK, Gustafson N, Thomas LJ, Strauss HW, et al. Risk factors for sudden death after acute myocardial infarction: Two-year follow-up. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1984; 54: 31–36.
[36]
Bauer A, Barthel P, Schneider R, Ulm K, Müller A, Joeinig A, et al. Improved Stratification of Autonomic Regulation for risk prediction in post-infarction patients with preserved left ventricular function (ISAR-Risk). European Heart Journal. 2009; 30: 576–583.
[37]
Richards DA, Byth K, Ross DL, Uther JB. What is the best predictor of spontaneous ventricular tachycardia and sudden death after myocardial infarction? Circulation. 1991; 83: 756–763.
[38]
Hohnloser SH, Klingenheben T, Zabel M, Schöpperl M, Mauß O. Prevalence, characteristics and prognostic value during long-term follow-up of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999; 33: 1895–1902.
[39]
Buxton AE, Lee KL, Hafley GE. Relation of ejection fraction and inducible ventricular tachycardia to mode of death in patients with coronary artery disease. an analysis of patients enrolled in the multicenter unsustained tachycardia trial. Circulation. 2002; 106: 2466–2472.
[40]
Gatzoulis KA, Tsiachris D, Arsenos P, Antoniou C, Dilaveris P, Sideris S, et al. Arrhythmic risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: the PRESERVE EF study. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 2940–2949.
[41]
Hofsten DE, Wachtell K, Lund B, Molgaard H, Egstrup K. Prevalence and prognostic implications of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after revascularization with either fibrinolysis or primary angioplasty. European Heart Journal. 2007; 28: 407–414.
[42]
Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G. A Randomized Study of the Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999; 341: 1882–1890.
[43]
Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, Sutradhar SC, Anker SD, Cropp AB, et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: Prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006; 113: 1424–1433.
[44]
Shadman R, Poole JE, Dardas TF, Mozaffarian D, Cleland JGF, Swedberg K, et al. A novel method to predict the proportional risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure: Derivation of the Seattle Proportional Risk Model. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 2069–2077.
[45]
Bailey JJ, Berson AS, Handelsman H, Hodges M. Utility of current risk stratification tests for predicting major arrhythmic events after myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2001; 38: 1902–1911.
[46]
Gold MR, Ip JH, Costantini O, Poole JE, McNulty S, Mark DB, et al. Role of microvolt T-wave alternans in assessment of arrhythmia vulnerability among patients with heart failure and systolic dysfunction primary results from the T-wave alternans sudden cardiac death in heart failure trial substudy. Circulation. 2008; 118: 2022–2028.
[47]
Chow T, Kereiakes DJ, Onufer J, Woelfel A, Gursoy S, Peterson BJ, et al. Does Microvolt T-Wave Alternans Testing Predict Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Prophylactic Defibrillators? The MASTER (Microvolt T Wave Alternans Testing for Risk Stratification of Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52: 1607–1615.
[48]
Costantini O, Hohnloser SH, Kirk MM, Lerman BB, Baker JH, Sethuraman B, et al. The ABCD (Alternans Before Cardioverter Defibrillator) Trial. Strategies Using T-Wave Alternans to Improve Efficiency of Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009; 53: 471–479.
[49]
Lahiri MK, Kannankeril PJ, Goldberger JJ. Assessment of Autonomic Function in Cardiovascular Disease. Physiological Basis and Prognostic Implications. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 51: 1725–1733.
[50]
de Haan S, de Boer K, Commandeur J, Beek AM, van Rossum AC, Allaart CP. Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients eligible for ICD therapy: Discrepancy between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D echocardiography. Netherlands Heart Journal. 2014; 22: 449–455.
[51]
Pontone G, Guaricci AI, Andreini D, Solbiati A, Guglielmo M, Mushtaq S, et al. Prognostic Benefit of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance over Transthoracic Echocardiography for the Assessment of Ischemic and Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients Referred for the Evaluation of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator Therapy. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2016; 9: e004956.
[52]
Joshi SB, Connelly KA, Jimenez-Juan L, Hansen M, Kirpalani A, Dorian P, et al. Potential clinical impact of cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of ejection fraction on eligibility for cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2012; 14: 69.
[53]
Pontone G, Guaricci AI, Andreini D, Ferro G, Guglielmo M, Baggiano A, et al. Prognostic Stratification of Patients with ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PROSPECT): A cardiac magnetic resonance study. Circ Cardiovasc). Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017; 10: e006428.
[54]
Chi WK, Gong M, Bazoukis G, Yan BP, Letsas KP, Liu T, et al. Impact of Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion on Arrhythmic and Mortality Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2018; 4: 1214–1223.
[55]
Cronin EM, Bogun FM, Maury P, Peichl P, Chen M, Namboodiri N, et al. 2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias. Heart Rhythm. 2020; 17: e155–e205.
[56]
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Schulz-Menger J. Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2016; 18: 6.
[57]
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Pilz G, Schulz-Menger J. Representation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the AHA / ACC guidelines. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2017; 19: 70.
[58]
Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: Developed by the Task Force on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): With the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2022; 24: 71–164.
[59]
Disertori M, Rigoni M, Pace N, Casolo G, Masè M, Gonzini L, et al. Myocardial Fibrosis Assessment by LGE is a Powerful Predictor of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Ischemic and Nonischemic LV Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2016; 9: 1046–1055.
[60]
Bilchick KC. The Fault is in our Scars: LGE and Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk in LV Dysfunction. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2016; 9: 1056–1058.
[61]
Leyva F, Zegard A, Okafor O, Foley P, Umar F, Taylor RJ, et al. Myocardial Fibrosis Predicts Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Death after Cardiac Electronic Device Implantation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 79: 665–678.
[62]
Gulati A, Jabbour A, Ismail TF, Guha K, Khwaja J, Raza S, et al. Association of Fibrosis with Mortality and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 309: 896–908.
[63]
Iles LM, Ellims AH, Llewellyn H, Hare JL, Kaye DM, McLean CA, et al. Histological validation of cardiac magnetic resonance analysis of regional and diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis. European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015; 16: 14–22.
[64]
Schmidt A, Azevedo CF, Cheng A, Gupta SN, Bluemke DA, Foo TK, et al. Infarct tissue heterogeneity by magnetic resonance imaging identifies enhanced cardiac arrhythmia susceptibility in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2007; 115: 2006–2014.
[65]
Bello D, Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Pereles FS, Passman R, Song G, et al. Infarct morphology identifies patients with substrate for sustained ventricular tachycardia. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005; 45: 1104–1108.
[66]
Bogun FM, Desjardins B, Good E, Gupta S, Crawford T, Oral H, et al. Delayed-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. Utility for Identifying the Ventricular Arrhythmia Substrate. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009; 53: 1138–1145.
[67]
Perez-David E, Arenal A, Rubio-Guivernau JL, del Castillo R, Atea L, Arbelo E, et al. NNoninvasive identification of ventricular tachycardia-related conducting channels using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic myocardial infarction: Comparison of signal intensity scar mapping and endocardial voltage mappin. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011; 57: 184–194.
[68]
Andreu D, Ortiz-Pérez JT, Boussy T, Fernández-Armenta J, de Caralt TM, Perea RJ, et al. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance in identifying the ventricular arrhythmia substrate and the approach needed for ablation. European Heart Journal. 2014; 35: 1316–1326.
[69]
Andreu D, Ortiz-Pérez JT, Fernández-Armenta J, Guiu E, Acosta J, Prat-González S, et al. 3D delayed-enhanced magnetic resonance sequences improve conducting channel delineation prior to ventricular tachycardia ablation. Europace. 2015; 17: 938–945.
[70]
Fernández-Armenta J, Berruezo A, Andreu D, Camara O, Silva E, Serra L, et al. Three-Dimensional Architecture of Scar and Conducting Channels Based on High Resolution ce-CMR: Insights for ventricular tachycardia ablation. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2013; 6: 528–537.
[71]
Piers SRD, Tao Q, de Riva Silva M, Siebelink H, Schalij MJ, van der Geest RJ, et al. CMR–Based Identification of Critical Isthmus Sites of Ischemic and Nonischemic Ventricular Tachycardia. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2014; 7: 774–784.
[72]
Klem I, Weinsaft JW, Bahnson TD, Hegland D, Kim HW, Hayes B, et al. Assessment of Myocardial Scarring Improves Risk Stratification in Patients Evaluated for Cardiac Defibrillator Implantation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012; 60: 408–420.
[73]
Zegard A, Okafor O, de Bono J, Kalla M, Lencioni M, Marshall H, et al. Myocardial Fibrosis as a Predictor of Sudden Death in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 77: 29–41.
[74]
Zegard A, Okafor O, de Bono J, Kalla M, Lencioni M, Marshall H, et al. Greyzone myocardial fibrosis and ventricular arrhythmias in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction > 35%. Europace. 2022; 24: 31–39.
[75]
Jauregui B, Soto-Iglesias D, Penela D, Acosta J, Fernandez-Armenta J, Linhart M, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance determinants of ventricular arrhythmic events after myocardial infarction. Europace. 2021; euab275. (in press)
[76]
Jugdutt BI. Ventricular Remodeling after Infarction and the Extracellular Collagen Matrix: When is enough enough? Circulation. 2003; 108: 1395–1403.
[77]
Iles L, Pfluger H, Phrommintikul A, Cherayath J, Aksit P, Gupta S, et al. Evaluation of Diffuse Myocardial Fibrosis in Heart Failure with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Contrast-enhanced T1 Mapping. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52: 1574–1580.
[78]
Chen Z, Sohal M, Voigt T, Sammut E, Tobon-Gomez C, Child N, et al. Myocardial tissue characterization by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using T1 mapping predicts ventricular arrhythmia in ischemic and non–ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 792–801.
[79]
Deng D, Arevalo H, Pashakhanloo F, Prakosa A, Ashikaga H, McVeigh E, et al. Accuracy of prediction of infarct-related arrhythmic circuits from image-based models reconstructed from low and high resolution MRI. Frontiers in Physiology. 2015; 6: 282.
[80]
Andreu D, Penela D, Acosta J, Fernández-Armenta J, Perea RJ, Soto-Iglesias D, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance–aided scar dechanneling: Influence on acute and long-term outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14: 1121–1128.
[81]
Zghaib T, Ipek EG, Hansford R, Ashikaga H, Berger RD, Marine JE, et al. Standard Ablation Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Ablation in the Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia. Circulation: Arrhythmia and electrophysiology. 2018; 11: e005973.
[82]
Soto-Iglesias D, Penela D, Jáuregui B, Acosta J, Fernández-Armenta J, Linhart M, et al. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance-Guided Ventricular Tachycardia Substrate Ablation. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6: 436–447.
[83]
Jáuregui B, Soto-Iglesias D, Penela D, Acosta J, Fernández-Armenta J, Linhart M, et al. Follow-Up After Myocardial Infarction to Explore the Stability of Arrhythmogenic Substrate: The Footprint Study. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2020; 6: 207–218.
Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Share
Back to top