Assessment, significance and mechanism of ventricular electrical instability after myocardial infarction

The mechanism of reentrant tachycardia was established nearly a century ago, but the relationships between myocardial infarction and predisposition to sudden death were not unravelled until much later. In the latter half of the twentieth century many studies sought to ascertain what variables were predictive of death following myocardial infarction. Approximately one half of all deaths during the year following myocardial infarction are sudden and due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). We aimed to utilise non-invasive signal-averaging, along with programmed electrical stimulation of the heart, to determine whether one could predict spontaneous ventricular tachycardia and sudden death late after myocardial infarction. The sensitivity of ventricular electrical instablility (inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation) as a predictor of instantaneous death or spontaneous VT was 86%, and the specificity was 83%. When other variables (delayed ventricular activation at signal-averaging, ejection fraction at gated heart pool scan, ventricular ectopic activity at ambulatory monitoring and exercise testing) were taken into account, inducible VT at electrophysiological study was the single best predictor of spontaneous VT and sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction. The Westmead studies of Uther et al. in the decade or so from 1980 established programmed stimulation as the best predictor of sudden death after myocardial infarction. Subsequent studies by others have demonstrated a survival advantage of defibrillator implantation in patients with low ejection fraction (and inducible ventricular tachycardia) after myocardial infarction.