Abstract
Despite advances in therapies for myocardial infarction (MI), death attributed to a cardiac arrest from ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) remains an important problem. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective in preventing death from VT/VF, but reliably identifying which post-MI patients would benefit from an ICD remains a major challenge. Beyond the initial post-MI period, the presence of significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, alone or in combination with the induction of sustained VT/VF during invasive testing, is the only proven means of selecting patients for a prophylactic ICD. However, these approaches identify only a fraction of those at risk. Furthermore, most patients with significant LV dysfunction after MI have a low, near-term risk of VT/VF. Noninvasive risk stratification tools have been developed to better identify patients likely to benefit from an ICD. To date, none of these tools has been proven useful in this regard. The factors leading to a cardiac arrest are complex, and a single test is unlikely to reliably predict risk. Noninvasive assessment of cardiac structure, conduction and repolarization along with autonomic modulation appear to be useful in predicting the risk of a cardiac arrest after MI, particularly when assessed in combination. However, randomized trials assessing the efficacy of ICD therapy in patients identified as being at risk are required. Until such data are available, significant LV dysfunction alone and in combination with the induction of VT/VF during invasive testing in the nonacute post-MI period remain the only proven methods to guide prophylactic ICD therapy.