Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Stratification Among Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices

Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCirculation Reports p. CR-25-0115
Main Authors Ueda, Nobuhiko, Ishibashi, Kohei, Noda, Takashi, Oka, Satoshi, Miyazaki, Yuichiro, Wakamiya, Akinori, Nakajima, Kenzaburo, Kamakura, Tsukasa, Wada, Mitsuru, Inoue, Yuko, Miyamoto, Koji, Nagase, Satoshi, Aiba, Takeshi, Kanzaki, Hideaki, Izumi, Chisato, Noguchi, Teruo, Kusano, Kengo
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published The Japanese Circulation Society 26.08.2025
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2434-0790
2434-0790
DOI10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) compared with those without, and are candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases the risk of VA; however, selection of a suitable CRT device remains challenging.Methods and Results: In 678 patients with a CRT/ICD device and LV dysfunction, we investigated 325 CRT and 142 ICD patients for primary prevention. VA was defined as lasting ≥30 s or being treated with an ICD. CRT non-responders were defined as patients without reduced LV end-systolic volume ≥15%. During the follow-up period, 98 (21%) patients had a VA event (CRT 71 [22%] vs. ICD 27 [19%]; P=0.49). The VA risk score was calculated by summing values for non-left bundle branch block, left atrial diameter >45 mm, persistent atrial fibrillation, male sex, LV ejection fraction <25%, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Our results showed that the VA risk score stratified the risk of VA among CRT patients (P<0.01), but was not significant for ICD patients (P=0.24). Patients with a VA risk score ≥4 (divided by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had a higher risk of VA among CRT patients (log rank P<0.01); however, it was not significant for ICD patients (log rank P=0.71).Conclusions: The VA risk score could be a useful indicator for VA among CRT candidates.
ISSN:2434-0790
2434-0790
DOI:10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0115