Case Report

Sudden Cardiac Death in Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy and the Primary Prevention ICD: Time for a More a Personalised Approach?

Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


Guidelines recommend primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (PPICD) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% only after 3 months of optimal medical therapy (OMT) or 6 weeks after acute MI with persistent LVEF dysfunction. A 73-year-old woman presented with decompensated heart failure secondary to ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Severe coronary disease with sufficient dysfunctional myocardial segments on cardiac MRI suggested potential benefit from revascularisation. Following discussion with the heart team, she underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PPICD implantation was deferred as per guideline recommendations. However, 20 days post-PCI, the patient died from malignant ventricular arrhythmia captured on a Holter monitor. This case demonstrates that some high-risk patients may not receive a potentially life-saving PPICD if guidelines are stringently adhered to. We highlight evidence that LVEF alone is of limited value in a risk assessment of arrhythmogenic death, and postulate that a more personalised ICD prescription should be considered using scar characteristics on cardiac MRI to prompt upstream ICD implantation in high-risk patients.

Disclosure:POK is editor-in-chief of Interventional Cardiology; this did not influence peer review. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.



Published online:

Informed Consent:

Informed consent for publication of this care report has been obtained from the patient’s next of kin as the patient is deceased, sadly.

Correspondence Details:Peter O’Kane, Dorset Heart Centre, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Castle Lane East, Bournemouth BH7 7DW, UK. E: Peter.o’

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

International guidelines recommend primary prevention ICDs (PPICDs) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% after a minimum 3 months of optimal medical therapy (OMT).1 While LVEF reassessment is advised 6–12 weeks after acute MI (AMI) if acutely <40% to permit potential recovery of LVEF after revascularisation given the phenomena of myocardial stunning.

However, less than 20% of sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) occur in patients with an LVEF of <35%.2 Furthermore, prevalence of SCD is highest in the first 6 months post-AMI, with an estimated 51% of these attributable to ventricular arrhythmias (VA) suggesting strict guideline compliance may risk a delay for truly eligible patients receiving PPICD resulting in potentially avoidable SCD secondary to VA.3

Case Report

A 73-year-old woman presented with progressive exertional dyspnoea and chest pain. Her medical history was significant for hypertension and chronic kidney disease and she was a former smoker. More recently, she had developed orthopnoea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea prompting her to seek medical attention.

Clinical examination findings were consistent with pulmonary oedema. An ECG demonstrated sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block. Admission blood tests showed a troponin T (TnT) of 46 ng/l (ref <14) and N-terminal pro-B naturetic peptide (NT-proBNP) of 1,828 ng/l (ref <125 ng/ml). Following initial treatment with loop diuretics, she was stabilised with optimal medical therapy (OMT).

Transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated an LVEF of 24%. Coronary angiography showed severe coronary disease with sub-totally occluded right coronary artery (RCA) (Figure 1A), occluded left circumflex (LCx) (Figure 1B) and severe calcific stenosis of proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) extending into left main stem (LMS) (Figure 1C).

Viability assessment with cardiac MRI (CMRI) was undertaken to inform potential revascularisation, this confirmed severe systolic dysfunction with an LVEF 31% and non-viable RCA and LCx territories (Figure 2). The LAD territory remained viable with anterior wall dysfunction suggesting there would be a potential benefit from revascularisation.

Following heart team discussion, the patient underwent intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to LAD/LMS with four drug-eluting stents placed in the absence of mechanical circulatory support (Figure 1D). Asymptomatic loss of septal vessels was noted. Following observation for 48 hours post-PCI, the patient was discharged home on bisoprolol 2.5 mg, ramipril 5 mg, eplerenone 25 mg, aspirin 75 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg. Implantation of a PPICD was considered but ultimately deferred following a multidisciplinary team discussion as per guideline recommendations, pending LVEF reassessment 6 weeks post-revascularisation and initiation of OMT.

Coronary Angiography

Article image

Cardiac Viability MRI

Article image

During a cardiac rehabilitation review 3 weeks post-discharge, the patient reported an episode of palpitations and dyspnoea, which had woken her up. A 24-hour ambulatory ECG monitor was fitted and the patient allowed home, but the patient died that night. Subsequent holter interrogation demonstrated sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (Figure 3A and B) degenerating into ventricular fibrillation (Figure 3C) leading to SCD.


The efficacy of PPICD for ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was established in two trials. In MADIT II LVEF <30% was used for inclusion and an absolute risk reduction of 6% at 2-year follow-up was found, while SCD-HeFT using LVEF <35% as a cut-off found an absolute risk reduction of 7% after 5 years.4,5 Based on these studies, 17–25 ICDs would be required to save one life suggesting that, while PPICDs are an effective intervention, the use of LVEF in isolation is not the most sensitive method to identify the subset of patients who will receive the most benefit from their use.

The VALIANT registry of 14,609 patients found the rate of SCD at 30 days post-AMI to be 1.4% per month, reducing over time to 0.14% per month at 2 years.6 Of note, if the LVEF was <30%, SCD risk increased to 2.3% in the first month, furthermore 83% of mortality was within 30 days of discharge. Despite this, guidelines advocate waiting 6 weeks after AMI before considering PPICD, based on two randomised control trials.1

DINAMIT enrolled patients 6–40 days post-AMI with LVEF <35% and autonomic dysfunction while IRIS enrolled patients 5–31 days post-AMI with LVEF <40% and either elevated resting heart rate or non-sustained ventricular tachycardia.7,8 Both trials failed to show a benefit in all-cause mortality with the use of a PPICD. While a reduction in SCD was seen, this was offset by an increase in non-SCD. Mechanistically, this could be because 50% of SCD are due to non-arrhythmic causes, such as myocardial rupture and recurrent AMI, and would not be affected by PPICD.3 Alternatively, perhaps LVEF alone has poor specificity for determining arrhythmogenic potential. The trials were performed prior to the routine use of primary PCI and have small sample sizes, which are potential confounders.

More recently, patients with ST-segment elevation AMI and EF <40% were randomised within 4 days of PPICD if VT was inducible in an electrophysiological study (EPS).9 In patients with LVEF <40%, death or VA burden were not different to patients with EF >40% if they had a negative EPS for inducible VT. This again highlights the imprecise nature of using LVEF alone in predicting arrhythmic SCD but suggests EPS may be better at stratifying VA risk compared with autonomic dysfunction used in previous studies.

Performing an EPS in all patients with reduced LVEF following AMI would not be practical and therefore CMRI offers an attractive non-invasive alternative. A meta-analysis of 2,850 patients found the presence of scar, as detected by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on CMRI, to be associated with arrhythmic events.10 The annualised arrhythmia event rate in patients with LGE was 8.6% compared with 1.7% in those without LGE. In patients with LVEF <30% and LGE, 25.8% had an arrhythmic event in contrast to 3.1% in those without LGE. These patients can be further risk stratified by evaluating scar mass, transmurality and gray zone mass, in particular.11 The gray zone describes heterogeneous tissue with mixed fibrosis and viable myocytes in the border zone between infarcted and normal myocardium. This substrate permits re-entrant circuits to develop and may be more arrhythmogenic than fully infarcted tissue. Gray zone mass has also been correlated with arrhythmia risk and inducibility of VT on EPS.2,12 In this case, the presence of transmural scar in the inferior and inferolateral wall with a further >50% scar in the lateral wall suggested the patient was at high risk for VA, and using such characteristics could help refine selection for PPICD by better risk stratifying patients as compared to using EF in isolation.

The impact of revascularisation on scar characteristics is yet to be well described. A small series of three patients undergoing chronic total occlusion PCI found a reduction in the area of border zone scar at 6 months post-PCI.13 Whether this translates to a reduction in VA risk or improved outcomes requires further study. Additionally, in the present case the loss of septal vessels during PCI may have provided a nidus for triggering VA potentially by creating a new scar.

A number of studies have consistently shown that LVEF is less likely to improve when impairment is due to ICM.14 Surgical revascularisation with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in ICM does improve outcome, but only after a decade, as shown in the STICH study.15 However, further analysis found CABG did not increase the chances of LVEF improvement of >10% as compared with OMT.16 Improvement in LVEF >10% and CABG both independently improved survival, leading the authors to conclude CABG improves survival by mechanisms other than LVEF recovery. The recent REVIVED study found no benefit to revascularisation with PCI compared to OMT, moreover PCI did not affect LVEF above the improvements seen with OMT alone.17

A registry of 2,540 PPICD implants following guideline recommendations found the probability of appropriate device therapy at 3 years was 24% while 12% received inappropriate therapy.18 Moreover, at 12 months there was no difference in the probability of receiving an appropriate or inappropriate shock (6.1% versus 5%, p=0.06). Inappropriate shocks have been associated with increased mortality, with the risk increasing with each inappropriate shock experienced, reinforcing the importance of patient selection for PPICD.19

A compromise in scenarios such as the present case study may be to use a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) while awaiting reassessment of LVEF. WCD can successfully treat VA while also allowing inappropriate shocks to be aborted via a patient response button in up to 95% of cases where incorrect VA detection has occurred.20

Finally, medical therapy must always be optimised in such cases to reduce the risk of VA and SCD irrespective of whether a PPICD is implanted. The present case demonstrates initiation of VT following a ventricular ectopic causing R-on-T phenomenon and dose titration of ß-blocker may have reduced the risk of ectopy. Moreover, ß-blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of SCD by 31% in heart failure.21

24-Hour Holter Monitor

Article image


We propose that current guidelines for PPICD lack sensitivity and specificity for patient selection where LVEF is the sole determinant. As in this case report, the arrhythmic risk could have been better predicted to prompt PPICD implantation during the index admission without waiting 6 weeks when there is significant myocardial scar and the benefits of revascularisation in ICM are unclear. We advocate a more personalised approach to risk stratification of such patients.

Clinical Perspective

  • Current guideline recommendations result in many patients receiving a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (PPICD) from which they may never receive therapy or receive inappropriate therapies and conversely some patients in whom sudden cardiac death could have been aborted will not receive an ICD.
  • Left ventricular ejection fraction has poor sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death from ventricular arrhythmia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
  • Scar characteristics on cardiac MRI may improve the identification of patients who would most benefit from a PPICD.
  • The role of revascularisation in ischaemic cardiomyopathy to improve ventricular function and reduce arrhythmic risk remains unclear.


  1. Priori SG, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, 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 (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). Eur Heart J 2015;36:2793–867.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Wellens HJ, Schwartz PJ, Lindemans FW, et al. Risk stratification for sudden cardiac death: current status and challenges for the future. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1642–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Pouleur AC, Barkoudah E, Uno H, et al. Pathogenesis of sudden unexpected death in a clinical trial of patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both. Circulation 2010;122:597–602.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2002;346:877–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:225–37.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Solomon SD, Zelenkofske S, McMurray JJ, et al. Sudden death in patients with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, or both. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2581–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P, et al. Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2481–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Steinbeck G, Andresen D, Seidl K, et al. Defibrillator implantation early after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1427–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Zaman S, Narayan A, Thiagalingam A, et al. Long-term arrhythmia-free survival in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and no inducible ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2014;129:848–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Disertori M, Rigoni M, Pace N, et al. Myocardial fibrosis assessment by LGE is a powerful predictor of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ischemic and nonischemic LV dysfunction: a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:1046–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Bilchick KC. The fault is in our scars: LGE and ventricular arrhythmia risk in LV dysfunction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:1056–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Schmidt A, Azevedo CF, Cheng A, et al. Infarct tissue heterogeneity by magnetic resonance imaging identifies enhanced cardiac arrhythmia susceptibility in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 2007;115:2006–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Myat A, Patel M, Silberbauer J, Hildick-Smith D. Impact of chronic total coronary occlusion revascularisation on infarct-related myocardial scars responsible for recurrent ventricular tachycardia. EuroIntervention 2021;16:1204–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Wilcox JE, Fonarow GC, Yancy CW, et al. Factors associated with improvement in ejection fraction in clinical practice among patients with heart failure: findings from IMPROVE HF. Am Heart J 2012;163:49–56.e2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Petrie MC, Jhund PS, She L, et al. Ten-year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting according to age in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: an analysis of the extended follow-up of the STICH trial (surgical treatment for ischemic heart failure). Circulation 2016;134:1314–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Perry AS, Mann DL, Brown DL. Improvement of ejection fraction and mortality in ischaemic heart failure. Heart 2021;107:326–331.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Perera D, Clayton T, O’Kane PD, et al. Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2022;387:1351–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Greenlee RT, Go AS, Peterson PN, et al. Device therapies among patients receiving primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the cardiovascular research network. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e008292.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. van Rees JB, Borleffs CJ, de Bie MK, et al. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:556–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Garcia R, Combes N, Defaye P, et al. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a transient risk of sudden cardiac death: the WEARIT-France cohort study. Europace 2021;23:73–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Al-Gobari M, El Khatib C, Pillon F, Gueyffier F. β-blockers for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2013;13:52.
    Crossref | PubMed