Background: Prediction of recurrent malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias after insertion of a implantable cardioverter- -defibrillator (ICD) is challenging. Microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) seems to be a promising marker of such events in ICD recipients.
Aim: To assess prognostic significance of MTWA and other noninvasive parameters in the prediction of major arrhythmic events after ICD implantation.
Methods: This prospective study included 155 patients (121 male, age 59 ± 11 years) in whom ICD was implanted for secondary prevention of a sudden cardiac death. In all patients, clinical evaluation along with estimation of ejection fraction, MTWA measurement using the HearTwave Cambridge Heart system, and determination of the corrected QT interval (QTc) and QT dispersion (QTd) based on resting ECG were performed 3 days before ICD implantation. Using 24-h Holter monitoring, cardiac arrhythmias, QT interval, QT dynamicity, QT variability (QTSD) and heart rate variability (HRV) time domain parameters were determined. MTWA results were categorised, based on the accepted criteria, as positive, negative or indeterminate. In further analyses, positive and indeterminate MTWA results were grouped together as abnormal or non-negative tests [MTWA(+)], while negative MTWA results were considered normal [MTWA(–)]. During the follow-up (mean duration 21.6 ± 11.6 months), major arrhythmic cardiac events (MACE), defined as death and/or the need for ablation and/or heart transplantation due to malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias, were recorded.
Results: During the follow-up, MACE occurred in 17 (11%) patients. Abnormal MTWA before ICD implantation was found significantly more frequently in patients with MACE as compared to patients without MACE. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified abnormal MTWA and QTSD as independent risk factors for MACE, with hazard ratios of 10.82 (95% CI 9.76–11.88; p < 0.05) and 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.08), respectively. Significant differences in MACE-free survival rate with regard to MTWA results (abnormal vs normal MTWA) were shown during the follow-up (p < 0.001). The negative predictive value of normal MTWA for MACE was 98.6%. When both MTWA and QTSD were combined, the positive predictive value increased to 35%, with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 81%. The probability of MACE with normal results of both these tests was 2.3%.
Conclusions: Abnormal MTWA is a strong independent predictor of MACE in ICD recipients, and QTSD is a weaker predictor. In the prediction of MACE after ICD implantation, the highest predictive value was noted for abnormal MTWA combined with QTSD. Normal values of these two parameters were associated with a low probability of MACE. These results suggest that standardised MTWA evaluation can be useful for risk stratification in the clinical practice.