Key result
Myocardial bridge linked to ~4.2-fold higher risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia.
Why the study?
Myocardial bridge is generally considered benign despite associations with cardiovascular pathologies, and its long-term impact on life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia in patients with an ICD was unknown.
Does the presence of angiographically apparent myocardial bridge increase the risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?
Cohort (n=140)
No
Does the presence of angiographically apparent myocardial bridge increase the risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator?
Angiographically apparent myocardial bridging is a significant independent predictor of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients, extending its recognition beyond a benign anatomical variant.
Background Myocardial bridge (MB), common anatomic variant, is generally considered benign, while previous studies have shown associations between MB and various cardiovascular pathologies. This study aimed to investigate for the first time possible impact of MB on long‐term outcomes in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator, focusing on life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmia (LTVA). Methods and Results This retrospective analysis included 140 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary (n=23) or secondary (n=117) prevention of sudden cardiac death. Angiographically apparent MB was identified on coronary angiography as systolic milking appearance with significant arterial compression. The primary end point was the first episode(s) of LTVA defined as appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatments (antitachyarrhythmia pacing and/or shock) or sudden cardiac death, assessed for a median of 4.5 (2.2–7.1) years. During the follow‐up period, LTVA occurred in 37.9% of patients. Angiographically apparent MB was present in 22.1% of patients; this group showed younger age, lower rates of coronary risk factors and ischemic cardiomyopathy, higher prevalence of vasospastic angina and greater left ventricular ejection fraction compared with those without. Despite its lower risk profiles above, Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significantly lower event‐free rates in patients with versus without angiographically apparent MB. In multivariate analysis, presence of angiographically apparent MB was independently associated with LTVA (hazard ratio, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.39–7.55; P <0.0001). Conclusions Angiographically apparent MB was the independent determinant of LTVA in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Although further studies will need to confirm our findings, assessment of MB appears to enhance identification of high‐risk patients who may benefit from closer follow‐up and targeted therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okada et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients for primary or secondary prevention (n=140). Angiographically apparent myocardial bridge vs. Absence of angiographically apparent myocardial bridge was evaluated on First episode of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia (defined as appropriate ICD treatments or sudden cardiac death) (HR 4.24, 95% CI 2.39-7.55, p=<0.0001). Angiographically apparent myocardial bridge was independently associated with a significantly increased risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia (HR 4.24) compared to patients without a myocardial bridge.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: