Dataset Information

Peripartum management of patient with long QT3 after successful implantable cardioverter defibrillator device discharge resulting in device failure: a case report.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Long QT3 syndrome type 3 (LQT3) is a gain of function mutation of the SCN5A gene that is inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion. Long QT3 syndrome type 3 results in an increase in arrhythmic events during rest, sleep, and bradycardia by extending the QT interval and inducing Torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Attempting to block the sodium channel with Class I anti-arrhythmics or blocking adrenergic tone with beta-blockers especially in women has shown to be beneficial. There have been few large-scale studies on treating patients with LQT3 due to its lethality and underreported number of cases. Specifically, the safety and efficacy of pharmacologic treatment in pregnant LQT3 patients are unknown.

Case summary

This case demonstrates the safe use of Mexiletine and Propranolol in a 3rd-trimester pregnant LQT3 patient after a presumed ventricular arrhythmia and device-lead electrical short from therapy rendered her implantable cardioverter defibrillator inoperable in a VVI mode (venticular demand pacing). With appropriate medications, the patient was safely monitored through the remainder of her pregnancy and safely delivered at 36 weeks of pregnancy a healthy baby girl. The daughter, heterozygous for LQT3, showed no evidence of intrauterine growth restriction or other side effects from the medications.

Discussion

There are many variants of the SCN5A gene mutations that can lead to different phenotypes and not all mutations are responsive to the same medications. In this case, Mexiletine and Propranolol, both of which have only recently shown to benefit certain variants or LQT3 respectively, were safely started during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy without harming the foetus.

SUBMITTER: Lee MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8672658 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks on subsequent mortality.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether the arrhythmic substrate leading to ICD therapy or the therapy itself increases mortality.MethodsThe study cohort included 5,516 ICD recipients who were enrolled in 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, RAID). The authors evaluated the association of device therapy with subsequent mortality in 4 separate time-dependent models: model I, type of ICD therapy; model II, type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered; model III, combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up; and model IV, incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks.ResultsWhen analyzed by the type of ICD therapy (model I), a first appropriate ICD shock was associated with increased risk of subsequent mortality with or without concomitant occurrence of inappropriate shock during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.78 and 2.31; p < 0.001 and p = 0.12), whereas inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk (HR: 1.23; p = 0.42). Similarly, ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (model II) was associated with increased risk of death with or without concomitant therapy for VT <200 beats/min (HRs: 2.25 and 2.62; both p < 0.001), whereas appropriate therapy for VT <200 beats/min or inappropriate therapy (regardless of etiology) did not reach statistical significance (all p > 0.10). Combined assessment of all therapy and arrhythmia types during follow-up (model III) showed that appropriate ICD shocks for VF, shocks for fast VT (≥200 beats/min) without prior antitachycardia pacing (ATP), as well as shocks for fast VT delivered after failed ATP, were associated with the highest risk of subsequent death (HR: all >2.8; p < 0.001). Finally, 2 or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with incremental risk to the first appropriate ICD shock (model IV).ConclusionThe combined data from 5 landmark ICD trials suggest that the underlying arrhythmic substrate rather than the ICD therapy is the more important determinant of mortality in ICD recipients.

Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.