Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator use in patients perceived to be at high risk early post-myocardial infarction

Sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended heart rate control among a large sample of patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest

Background

Despite known clinical benefits, guideline-recommended heart rate (HR) control is not achieved for a significant proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) provides continuous HR monitoring and alerts that could aid medication titration.

Objective

This study sought to evaluate sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended HR control during a period of WCD use.

Methods

Data from patients fitted with a WCD from 2015 to 2018 were obtained from the manufacturer's database (ZOLL). The proportion of patients with adequate nighttime resting HR control at the beginning of use (BOU) and at the end of use (EOU) were compared by sex. Adequate HR control was defined as having a nighttime median HR <70 beats/min.

Results

A total of 21,440 women and a comparative sample of 17,328 men (median 90 [IQR 59-116] days of WCD wear) were included in the final dataset. Among patients who did not receive a shock, over half had insufficient HR control at BOU (59% of women, 53% of men). Although the proportion of patients with resting HR ≥70 beats/min improved by EOU, 43% of women and 36% of men did not achieve guideline-recommended HR control.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of women and men did not achieve adequate HR control during a period of medical therapy optimization. Compared with men, a greater proportion of women receiving WCD shocks had insufficiently controlled HR in the week preceding ventricular tachyarrhythmia/ventricular fibrillation and 43% of nonshocked women, compared with 36% of men, did not reach adequate HR control during the study period. The WCD can be utilized as a remote monitoring tool to record HR and inform adequate uptitration of beta-blockers, with particular focus on reducing the treatment gap in women.

The Role of the Wearable Defibrillator in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCDs) have been developed as a temporary measure for protecting patients at risk for sudden cardiac death that do not meet the indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), most notably in the early stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction before reassessment of their left ventricular ejection fraction. In this review, we report available evidence in the literature and guidelines regarding WCD use in order to try to define the role WCDs may have in heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last decade, most observational studies found WCDs to be both safe and effective in terminating ventricular arrhythmias in various indications, mostly centered around heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The only available randomized controlled trial using WCD did not however show a benefit on patients' survival. Hence, recent guidelines only recommended its use in limited indications. Recent data also suggest a possible interest of WCD in monitoring patients, a finding that may prove useful in the context of new-onset heart failure. Data regarding WCD benefit is scarce, and definitive conclusions on its utility are hard to draw. In the context of heart failure, and particularly new-onset heart failure, WCD might find a role in a global comprehensive management of the disease, both acting as an educational tool, a monitoring tool, and, most importantly, a safe and effective tool in preventing sudden cardiac death. The low level of evidence however invites caution, and the decision of prescribing a WCD needs to be individualized and thoroughly discussed with the patient whose compliance is key with this device.

Revascularization and Left Ventricular Dysfunction for ICD Eligibility

Common triggers for sudden cardiac death (SCD) are transient ischemia, hemodynamic fluctuations, neurocardiovascular influences, and environmental factors. SCD occurs rapidly when sinus rhythm degenerates into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF), followed by asystole. Such progressive worsening of the cardiac rhythm is in most cases observed in the setting of ischemic heart disease and often associated with advanced left ventricular (LV) impairment. Revascularization prevents negative outcomes including SCD and heart failure (HF) due to LV dysfunction (LVD). The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on top of medical therapy is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for patients with LVD and VT/VF. The beneficial effects of ICD have been demonstrated in primary prevention of SCD as well. However, yet debated is the temporal management for patients with LVD who are eligible to ICD prior to revascularization, either through percutaneous or surgical approach. Restoration of coronary blood flow has a dramatic impact on adverse LV remodeling, while it requires aggressive long-term antiplatelet therapy, which might increase complication for eventual ICD procedure when percutaneous strategy is pursued; on the other hand, when LV and/or multiorgan dysfunction is present and coronary artery bypass grafting is chosen, the overall risk is augmented, mostly in HF patients. The aims of this review are to describe the pathophysiologic benefits of revascularization, the studies addressing percutaneous, surgical or no revascularization and ICD implantation, as well as emerging defibrillation strategies for patients deemed at transient risk of SCD and/or at higher risk for transvenous ICD implantation.

Post-Shock Asystole in Patients Dying Out of Hospital While Wearing a Cardioverter Defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) prevents sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) but does not pace for post-shock asystole (PS-A) or bradycardia (PS-B;<50 beats/ min).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess PS-A and PS-B in patients dying out of hospital (OOH) while wearing a WCD.

METHODS

The database of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturers and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) was queried for manufacturers' reports of OOH deaths while patients were wearing a WCD. Excluded were patients who did not receive a shock or were initially shocked for asystole or during resuscitation.

RESULTS

From January 2017 to March 2022, 313 patients received an initial WCD shock for VF (n = 150), VT (n = 90), and non-VF/VT rhythms (n = 73). PS-A occurred in 204 patients (65.2%), and PS-B occurred in 111 (35.5%); 85 (41.7%) PS-A patients also had PS-B. Most PS-A patients (n = 185; 90.7%) had an initial shocked rhythm of VF or VT, but 19 patients (9.3%) were initially inappropriately shocked for atrial fibrillation/supraventricular tachycardia (n = 7) and idioventricular (n = 8) or sinus (n = 4) rhythm. PS-A occurred after the first WCD shock in 118 (63.8%) and after the first, second, or third shocks in 159 patients (85.9%). Seven patients had post-shock heart block. Eight patients had permanent pacemakers; 1 became nonfunctional after 1 shock, and 7 showed noncapture and/or asystole after 1 to 4 shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-shock asystole appears to be common in patients who die OOH after being shocked by a WCD for VF or VT. PS-A also occurs after inappropriate WCD shocks for non-VF/VT rhythms. Implanted pacemakers may not prevent PS-A after a WCD shock. WCD backup pacing should be explored.

Prevention of Early Sudden Cardiac Death after Myocardial Infarction Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator-Results from a Real-World Cohort

BACKGROUND

After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are at risk of sudden cardiac death. The VEST trial failed to show a reduction in arrhythmic mortality in AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed with a WCD, having a lower-than-expected WCD wearing compliance.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to investigate on outcomes of patients in a real-world Austrian cohort with good compliance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all eligible Austrian WCD patients according to the VEST trial inclusion and exclusion criteria between 2010 and 2020 was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 105 Austrian patients (64 ± 11 years, 12% female; LVEF 28 ± 6%) received a WCD for a median of 69 (1; 277) days after AMI (wearing duration 23.5 (0; 24) hours/day). Within the first 90 days, 4/105 (3.8%) patients received 9 appropriate shocks (2 (1; 5) shocks). No inappropriate shocks were delivered, and 3/105 (2.9%) patients died during follow-up. Arrhythmic mortality (1.9% Austria vs. 1.6% VEST, p = 0.52), as well as all-cause mortality (2.9% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.42) was comparable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The WCD is a safe treatment option in a highly selected cohort of patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after AMI. However, despite excellent WCD wearing duration in our cohort, the arrhythmic mortality rate was not significantly different.

Does Patient Compliance Influence Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator Effectiveness? A Single-Center Experience

The study was designed to assess patient adherence to wearable cardioverter defibrillator as an indicator of device effectiveness. The patient training is not widely properly standardized. We enrolled 25 patients with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death between June 2020 and August 2022. Among them, 84% were male with a median age of 63.6 years. The indication was an ischemic (44%) and a non-ischemic (56%) disease. The patients were followed-up until the decision to upgrade to an implantable device was taken. We trained the patients according to our suggested protocol. The median wear time was 90 days, and the median daily wear time was 23.5 h, similar throughout sex, age, and indication groups. In total, 24% of the participants underwent cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Between the device-implanted and non-implanted groups, left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular indexed end-diastolic volume were significantly different (EF 35.8 ± 12 vs. 46.4 ± 8.5%, p = 0.028, iEDV 108 ± 52 vs. 70.7 ± 21.1 mL/m2, p = 0.024). We did not find any differences in cardiac magnetic resonance data, even though all patients who underwent device implantation had late gadolinium enhancement spots. Our results support standardized patient training to obtain great patient adherence to the instructions to the wearable device and therefore its effectiveness.

ANMCO position paper: guide to the appropriate use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in clinical practice for patients at high transient risk of sudden cardiac death

Extended risk stratification and optimal management of patients with a permanently increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) are becoming increasingly important. There are several clinical conditions where the risk of arrhythmic death is present albeit only transient. As an example, patients with depressed left ventricular function have a high risk of SCD that may be only transient if there will be a significant recovery of function. It is important to protect the patients while receiving and titrating to the optimal dose the recommended drugs that may lead to an improved left ventricular function. In several other conditions, a transient risk of SCD can be observed even if the left ventricular function is not compromised. Examples are patients with acute myocarditis, during the diagnostic work-up of some arrhythmic conditions or after extraction of infected catheters while eradicating the associated infection. In all these conditions, it is important to offer a protection to these patients. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is of particular importance as a temporary non-invasive technology for both arrhythmia monitoring and therapy in patients with increased risk of SCD. Previous studies have shown the WCD to be an effective and safe therapy for the prevention of SCD caused by ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. The aim of this ANMCO position paper is to provide a recommendation for clinical utilization of the WCD in Italy, based upon current data and international guidelines. In this document, we will review the WCD functionality, indications, clinical evidence, and guideline recommendations. Finally, a recommendation for the utilization of the WCD in routine clinical practice will be presented, in order to provide physicians with a practical guidance for SCD risk stratification in patients who may benefit from this device.

Causes and Clinical Consequences of Inappropriate Shocks Experienced by Patients Wearing a Cardioverter-Defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The LifeVest® wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) prevents sudden cardiac death in at-risk patients who are not candidates for an implantable defibrillator. The WCD's safety and efficacy may be impacted by inappropriate shocks (IAS).

OBJECTIVE

Assess causes and clinical consequences of WCD inappropriate shocks in survivors of IAS events.

METHODS

The FDA Manufacturers and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was searched for IAS adverse events (AE) that were reported during 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 2,568 IAS-AE were found (average # IAS/event: 1.5±1.9; range: 1-48). IAS were caused by tachycardias (1,255, 48.9%), motion artifacts (840, 32.7%), and oversensing (OS) of low-level electrical signals (473, 18.4%) (p<0.001). Tachycardias included atrial fibrillation (AF; 828,32.2%), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT; 333,13.0%), and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (NSVT/VF; 87, 3.4%). Activities responsible for motion-induced IAS included riding a motorcycle, lawnmower, or tractor (n=128). IAS induced sustained VT or VF in 19 patients that were subsequently terminated by appropriate WCD shocks.Thirty patients fell and suffered physical injuries. Conscious patients (n=1905) did not use the response buttons to abort shocks (47.9%) or used them improperly (20.2%). IAS resulted in 1,190 emergency room visits or hospitalizations, and 17.3% (421/2440) of patients discontinued the WCD after experiencing IAS, especially multiple IAS.

CONCLUSIONS

The LifeVest WCD may deliver IAS caused by AF, SVT, NSVT/VF, motion artifacts and oversensing of electrical signals. These shocks may be arrhythmogenic, result in injuries, precipitate WCD discontinuation, and they consume medical resources. Improved WCD sensing, rhythm discrimination, and methods to abort IAS are needed.

Risk Factors for Arrhythmic Death, Overall Mortality, and Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias Requiring Shock After Myocardial Infarction

The VEST (Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial) showed a trend toward decreased sudden death and lower overall mortality with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in the postmyocardial infarction (post-MI) period. However, it is unclear which patients should receive WCD therapy. We aimed to identify the risk factors for arrhythmic death, all-cause mortality, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring appropriate shock to identify patients most likely to benefit from a WCD. The VEST trial included patients with acute MI with ejection fraction ≤35%. Using logistic regression, 7 risk factors were evaluated for association with arrhythmic death, all-cause mortality, and appropriate shock. Among 2,302 participants, 44 had arrhythmic death (1.9%) and 86 died of any cause (3.7%). Among 1,524 participants randomized to WCD, 20 experienced appropriate shock (1.3%) over 90 days. In the multivariable analyses, lower systolic blood pressure (SBP; odds ratio [OR] 1.64 per 10 mm Hg) and higher heart rate at discharge (OR 1.19 per 10 beats/min) were associated with arrhythmic death. Lower SBP (OR 1.37) and higher heart rate (OR 1.10) were associated with all-cause mortality. Higher heart rate (OR 1.20) was associated with appropriate shock. Patients with both SBP ≤100 and heart rate ≥100 were at increased odds of arrhythmic death (OR 4.82), all-cause mortality (OR 3.10), and appropriate shock (OR 6.13). In patients with acute MI and reduced ejection fraction, lower SBP and higher heart rate at discharge were strongly associated with arrhythmic death and all-cause mortality. In conclusion, these risk factors identify a select group at high risk of adverse events in a setting where WCD therapy is reasonable.

Defibrillation effectiveness and safety of the shock waveform used in a contemporary wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Results from animal and human studies

INTRODUCTION

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is used to protect patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest. We examined defibrillation efficacy and safety of a biphasic truncated exponential waveform designed for use in a contemporary WCD in three animal studies and a human study.

METHODS

Animal (swine) studies: #1: Efficacy comparison of a 170J BTE waveform (SHOCK A) to a 150J BTE waveform (SHOCK B) that approximates another commercially available waveform. Primary endpoint first shock success rate. #2: Efficacy comparison of the two waveforms at attenuated charge voltages in swine at three prespecified impedances. Primary endpoint first shock success rate. #3: Safety comparison of SHOCK A and SHOCK B in swine. Primary endpoint cardiac biomarker level changes baseline to 6 and 24 hours post-shock. Human Study: Efficacy comparison of SHOCK A to prespecified goal and safety evaluation. Primary endpoint cumulative first and second shock success rate. Safety endpoint adverse events.

RESULTS

Animal Studies #1: 120 VF episodes in six swine. First shock success rates for SHOCK A and SHOCK B were 100%; SHOCK A non-inferior to SHOCK B (entire 95% CI of rate difference above -10% margin, p < .001). #2: 2,160 VF episodes in thirty-six swine. Attenuated SHOCK A was non-inferior to attenuated SHOCK B at each impedance (entire 95% CI of rate difference above -10% margin, p < .001). #3: Ten swine, five shocked five times each with SHOCK A, five shocked five times each with SHOCK B. No significant difference in troponin I (p = 0.658) or creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.855) changes from baseline between SHOCK A and SHOCK B. Human Study: Thirteen patients, 100% VF conversion rate. Mild skin irritation from adhesive defibrillation pads in three patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The BTE waveform effectively and safely terminated induced VF in swine and a small sample in humans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Human study clinical trial registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04132466.

A Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator with a Low False Alarm Rate

BACKGROUND

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to ECG noise and wear discomfort.

OBJECTIVE

To test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort.

METHODS

130 patients with LVEF ≤ 40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD VT/VF episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day).

RESULTS

Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only 3 false positive shock alarm markers were recorded; 1 false positive shock alarm every 1,333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% CI: 0.00015-0.00361; p < 0.001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥ 170 bpm for ≥ 20 seconds) were missed by the WCD during 3,501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (IQR 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 hours (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%).

CONCLUSION

The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Multiparameter Monitoring with a Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator

A wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is a temporary treatment option for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) and for patients who are temporarily not candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In addition, the need for telemedical concepts in the detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) and its arrhythmias is growing. The WCD has evolved from a shock device detecting malignant ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and treating them with shocks to a heart-failure-monitoring device that captures physical activity and cardioacoustic biomarkers as surrogate parameters for HF to help the treating physician surveil and guide the HF therapy of each individual patient. In addition to its important role in preventing SCD, the WCD could become an important tool in heart failure treatment by helping prevent HF events by detecting imminent decompensation via remote monitoring and monitoring therapy success.

When is a wearable defibrillator indicated?

INTRODUCTION

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is a novel tool that may be of interest in situations with atransient risk of sudden cardiac death. It offers a temporary and easy to remove protection against malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In this review, the authors describe evidence in literature and different international guidelines and consensus.

AREAS COVERED

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and Google Scholar for relevant studies and comments.

EXPERT OPINION

If a WCD is indicated, the observance must be as perfect as possible. Thus, patients need proper education in wearing the WCD.The temporary use of a WCD is reasonable in patients with a high risk for SCD, even with a low level of evidence with only one randomized clinical trial (VEST), as its disadvantages are limited to a transitory impairment in quality of life and a low risk of inappropriate shock.Indications are now well accepted: ischemic cardiomyopathy with LVEF below 35% before reassessment, recent onset of NICM or presumed myocarditis with LVEF ≤35% before reassessment, after ICD explant until reimplantation (e.g. infection), and bridge to transplant.Future guidelines on WCD in the prevention of SCD may be warranted to harmonize clinical practice especially in debated indications..

Computational Model for Therapy Optimization of Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Shockable Rhythm Detection and Optimal Electrotherapy

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is a life saving, wearable, noninvasive therapeutic device that prevents fatal ventricular arrhythmic propagation that leads to sudden cardiac death (SCD). WCD are frequently prescribed to patients deemed to be at high arrhythmic risk but the underlying pathology is potentially reversible or to those who are awaiting an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. WCD is programmed to detect appropriate arrhythmic events and generate high energy shock capable of depolarizing the myocardium and thus re-initiating the sinus rhythm. WCD guidelines dictate very high reliability and accuracy to deliver timely and optimal therapy. Computational model-based process validation can verify device performance and benchmark the device setting to suit personalized requirements. In this article, we present a computational pipeline for WCD validation, both in terms of shock classification and shock optimization. For classification, we propose a convolutional neural network-"Long Short Term Memory network (LSTM) full form" (Convolutional neural network- Long short term memory network (CNN-LSTM)) based deep neural architecture for classifying shockable rhythms like Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) vs. other kinds of non-shockable rhythms. The proposed architecture has been evaluated on two open access ECG databases and the classification accuracy achieved is in adherence to American Heart Association standards for WCD. The computational model developed to study optimal electrotherapy response is an in-silico cardiac model integrating cardiac hemodynamics functionality and a 3D volume conductor model encompassing biophysical simulation to compute the effect of shock voltage on myocardial potential distribution. Defibrillation efficacy is simulated for different shocking electrode configurations to assess the best defibrillator outcome with minimal myocardial damage. While the biophysical simulation provides the field distribution through Finite Element Modeling during defibrillation, the hemodynamic module captures the changes in left ventricle functionality during an arrhythmic event. The developed computational model, apart from acting as a device validation test-bed, can also be used for the design and development of personalized WCD vests depending on subject-specific anatomy and pathology.

Feasibility and First Results of Heart Failure Monitoring Using the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The wearable cardioverter–defibrillator (WCD) is used in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition to arrhythmic events, the WCD provides near-continuous telemetric heart failure monitoring. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of additionally recorded parameters, such as heart rate or step count. We included patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF prescribed with a WCD. Via the WCD, step count and heart rate were acquired, and an approximate for heart rate variability (HRV5) was calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze predictors for an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Two hundred and seventy-six patients (31.9% female) were included. Mean LVEF was 25.3 ± 8.5%. Between the first and last seven days of usage, median heart rate fell significantly (p < 0.001), while median step count and HRV5 significantly increased (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, a delta of HRV5 > 23 ms was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement of ≥10% between prescription and 3-month follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF showed significant changes in heart rate, step count, and HRV5 between the beginning and end of WCD prescription time. HRV5 was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement and could serve as an early indicator of treatment response.

Real-world experience with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator: clinical effectiveness and wear-time adherence in patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Previous studies established a role for the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) to effectively and safely bridge temporary risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with advanced heart failure. The prognostic relevance of the WCD remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated adherence to, as well as the safety and effectiveness of, WCD use in a real-world cohort of patients at high risk for SCD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients (n = 83) receiving a WCD at a German tertiary care hospital between April 2012 and December 2019 were retrospectively included in this analysis. Patient characteristics were collected at the time of the index hospitalization. Using the Zoll® lifeVest® (ZOLL Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA, USA) network database, two separate investigators evaluated adherence to the WCD as well as arrhythmic events during WCD wear time.

RESULTS

During 3680 wearing days (mean WCD wear time, 44 days) with a median daily wear time of 23.1 h, three arrhythmic events of relevance (sustained ventricular tachycardia, VT) occurred, one of which was sufficiently terminated by WCD shock. Another patient died from sudden cardiac death while pausing his WCD. Right bundle branch block correlated significantly with sustained VT occurrence (r = 0.3315; 95% CI -0.1265 to 0.3014; p = 0.0022). In 30 patients (36.1%) a cardioverter/defibrillator was implanted.

CONCLUSION

In a real-life clinical setting, the use of WCD in patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death is effective and safe and adherence to the device is high. The event rate for VA was lower than in comparable patient cohorts. Adherence remains a crucial issue as one patient in the present series died while not wearing the device.

Phantom Shocks Associated With a Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCDs) are external devices capable of continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring as well as automatic detection and defibrillation of potentially life-threatening arrhythmias such as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF). They are an alternative approach for patients when an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is not appropriate. Although treatment with ICD is considered highly effective for the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high-risk patients susceptible to VT and VF, patients may still experience psychological difficulties such as fear of shock, avoidance of normal behaviors and reduced quality of life. One of these phenomena is phantom shock (PS), which is defined as a perception of having received a shock with no evidence of recorded defibrillation upon device interrogation. While PS has been reported in the ICD literature, to the best of our knowledge, we present the first known case of WCD-related PS. We also present a review of the current literature to explore the prevalence of PS, the factors associated with its pathogenesis and interventional studies aimed at reducing its occurrence. We highlight this case because PS is considered a phenomenon that few recognize, which should be discriminated from real device shocks before clinicians initiate treatment, device reprogramming or device discontinuation. We describe the psychosocial factors associated with PS to emphasize the importance of managing any associated psychiatric disorders and psychosocial factors both before and after initiation of device treatment.

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators after myocardial infarction: a review of its clinical utility and unmet needs in current clinical practice

Sudden cardiac death is one of the leading causes of death in the older population. Compared with the general population, patients who experienced a myocardial infarction are four to six times more likely to experience sudden cardiac death. Though primary percutaneous coronary intervention considerably reduces mortality in patients who experienced a myocardial infarction, a non-negligible number of sudden cardiac deaths still occurs. Despite the high incidence rate of sudden cardiac deaths during the first month after myocardial infarction, prophylactic use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has so far failed to convey a survival benefit. Therefore, current clinical guidelines recommend that cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is contraindicated until 90 days after myocardial infarction. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators were first approved for clinical use in 2002 and are currently considered as a bridge to therapy in patients with myocardial infarction with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in whom cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is temporarily not indicated. However, there is insufficient recognition among interventional cardiologists of the use of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators for preventing sudden cardiac death after myocardial infarction. Hence, we reviewed the evidence of the efficacy of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators used in patients following myocardial infarction to achieve better management of sudden cardiac death.

Benefit of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator for detection and therapy of arrhythmias in patients with myocarditis

Aims

Myocarditis may lead to malignant arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. As of today, there are no reliable predictors to identify individuals at risk for these catastrophic events. The aim of this study was to evaluate if a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) may detect and treat such arrhythmias adequately in the peracute setting of myocarditis.

Methods and results

In this observational, retrospective, single centre study, we reviewed patients presenting to the Charité Hospital from 2009 to 2017, who were provided with a WCD for the diagnosis of myocarditis with reduced ejection fraction (<50%) and/or arrhythmias. Amongst 259 patients receiving a WCD, 59 patients (23%) were diagnosed with myocarditis by histology. The mean age was 46 ± 14 years, and 11 patients were women (19%). The mean WCD wearing time was 86 ± 63 days, and the mean daily use was 20 ± 5 h. During that time, two patients (3%) had episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT; four total) corresponding to a rate of 28 sustained VT episodes per 100 patient‐years. Consequently, one of these patients underwent rhythm stabilization through intravenous amiodarone, while the other patient received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Two patients (3.4%) were found to have non‐sustained VT.

Conclusions

Using a WCD after acute myocarditis led to the detection of sustained VT in 2/59 patients (3%). While a WCD may prevent sudden cardiac death after myocarditis, our data suggest that WCD may have impact on clinical management through monitoring and arrhythmia detection.

The IC-D score for predicting prophylactic cardioverter-defibrillator implantation following acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% ≥6 weeks following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) may indicate prophylactic implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We sought to find predictors of absence of significant left ventricular (LV) remodeling post-MI.

METHODS

All consecutive patients hospitalized for acute MI with an LVEF ≤35% at discharge in our institution from 2010 were retrospectively included. Patients were assigned to two groups according to the persistence of an LVEF ≤35% (ICD+) or a recovery >35% (ICD-). Logistic regression was performed to build a predictive score, which was then externally validated.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1533 consecutive MI patients, 150 met inclusion criteria, 53 (35%) in the ICD+ group and 97 in the ICD group. After multivariable analyses, an LVEF ≤25% at discharge (adjusted OR 6.23 [2.47 to 17.0], p < .0001) and a CPK peak at the MI acute phase >4600 UI/L (adjusted OR 9.99 [4.27 to 25.3], p < .0001) both independently predicted non-recovery at 6 weeks. The IC-D (Increased Cpk-LV Dysfunction) score predicted persistent LVEF ≤35% with areas under curve of 0.83 and 0.73, in the study population and in a multicenter validation cohort of 150 patients, respectively (p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of a severely reduced LVEF and a major release of myocardial necrosis biomarkers at the acute phase of MI predict unfavorable remodeling, and prophylactic ICD implantation.

Reassessment of practical usage and accumulation of real-world data of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) in Japan-Design paper for J-WCDR study

Although implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are a powerful preventive therapy for cardiac sudden death, there are some populations in whom ICDs cannot be applied because of a lack of a definitive indication (grey-zone patients), such as in patients during the acute phase of cardiac injury with a susceptible risk for lethal arrhythmias. In such patients, wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCDs) provide safer bridging period during the acute phase until the final decision-making for the ICD use and it may eliminate any inappropriate overuse of ICDs in the subacute phase. The JCS/JHRS practical guidelines provide the criteria for WCD use in Japan. Nevertheless, the evidence for that is totally limited in Japan and is dependent on the accumulation of actual real-world data from other countries in order to be able to discuss the appropriate criteria for WCD use. This study will be conducted retrospectively and/or prospectively, and is an observational and multicenter study among Japanese institutions (J-WCDR, Japan WCD Registry). This will provide evidence for WCD use in our own country and contribute to upcoming updates for the future guideline revisions.

Keeping up to date: a current review of wearable cardioverter defibrillator use

The introduction of wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) provides a novel means of protection in select patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death. The WCD can safely record and terminate life-threatening arrhythmias. In this review, we explore the data behind indications for WCD use and discuss its limitations. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for relevant studies. The VEST trial, the first randomised controlled trial on WCD use, did not show statistical significance in utility of the WCD in post-myocardial infarction patients with low ejection fraction. While the use of WCD in this select patient population showed no benefit, the findings of the trial merit closer inspection. Various other indications of WCD use still exist and others require exploration. Select subsets of patients who stand to benefit for other indications include severely decreased left ventricular function post-revascularization with high arrhythmic burden, severe non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, patients awaiting heart transplant and patients who have had their implantable cardioverter device temporarily removed. The role of the WCD is also being explored in children, peripartum cardiomyopathy, haemodialysis patients, and in syncope secondary to high-risk arrhythmias.

The impact of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator use on long-term decision for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in a semirural acute care hospital

Purpose

Large-scale multi-center studies have reported on efficacy of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD). However, outcomes focused on WCD patients treated at community-based acute care centers are lacking.

Methods

Patients with cardiomyopathy were included when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was ≤ 35%. There were 120 patients meeting the criteria who also had LVEF measured at baseline and after 90 days of WCD use.

Results

After 90 days of WCD use, there were 44 (37%) patients in whom LVEF improved to > 35%. Comparison of patients, by whether LVEF improved or not, indicated that median days of WCD wear and hours of daily use were similar as well as characteristics, such as gender, age, and starting LVEF; and diagnoses leading to WCD prescription were similar between groups as were symptom-based prescription of medications. At the end of WCD use, improved LVEF > 35% correlated with fewer implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implants. There were 4 (3%) episodes of new atrial fibrillation detected during WCD use. The WCD appropriately delivered a shock to 3 (2.5%) patients with VT/VF being terminated by the first shock. All shocked patients survived for at least 24 h post-shock.

Conclusions

During WCD use, ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients manifest improved LVEF by 90 days. Long-term care decisions, such as implantation of an ICD, were influenced by LVEF improvement and occurrence of spontaneous VT/VF. The WCD protected patients from sudden cardiac death (SCD) until patient response to guideline-directed medical therapy could be determined.

Long-Term Outcome of the Randomized DAPA Trial

Background:

The randomized DAPA trial (Defibrillator After Primary Angioplasty) aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in early selected high-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction.

Methods:

A randomized, multicenter, controlled trial compared ICD versus conventional medical therapy in high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, based on one of the following factors: left ventricular ejection fraction <30% within 4 days after ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, primary ventricular fibrillation, Killip class ≥2 or TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention. ICD was implanted 30 to 60 days after MI. Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 3 years follow-up. The trial prematurely ended after inclusion of 266 patients (38% of the calculated sample size). Additional survival assessment was performed in February 2019 for the primary end point.

Results:

A total of 266 patients, 78.2% males, with a mean age of 60.8±11.3 years, were enrolled. One hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to the ICD arm and 135 patients to the control arm. All-cause mortality was significant lower in the ICD group (5% versus 13%, hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15–0.95]) after 3 years follow-up. Appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 9 patients at 3 years follow-up (5 within the first 8 months after implantation). After a median long-term follow-up of 9 years (interquartile range, 3–11), total mortality (18% versus 38%; hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.91]), and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28–0.99]) was significant lower in the ICD group. Noncardiac death was not significantly different between groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased ≥10% in 46.5% of the patients during follow-up, and the extent of improvement was similar in both study groups.

Conclusions:

In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial, early prophylactic ICD implantation demonstrated lower total and cardiac mortality in patients with high-risk ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Registration:

URL: https://www.trialregister.nl ; Unique identifier: Trial NL74 (NTR105).

Influence of decompensated heart failure on cardiac acoustic biomarkers: impact on early readmissions

Aims

Preventing hospitalization by detecting early evidence of heart failure (HF) decompensation in an outpatient setting can improve patient's quality of life and reduce costs of care. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of cardiac acoustic biomarkers (CABs), a combination of cardiohaemic vibrations synchronized with ECG signals, and heart rate (HR) for detecting HF decompensation during first 3 months after hospital discharge for HF.

Methods and results

Patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and hospitalized for decompensated HF were enrolled in a prospective observational study. All subjects wore a wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ZOLL LifeVest^®, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) that is capable of recording CABs and HR. The primary endpoint of the study was the first HF event, defined as HF readmission or HF emergency room visit. From June 2017 through August 2019, 671 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Eighty‐one patients (12.1%) had a total of 112 HF events. The algorithm detected HF events with a median of 32 days (interquartile range = 11‐45) in advance of the first HF event. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 60%, positive predictive value of 19%, and a negative predictive value of 94%. Of note, the baseline (first 7 days post‐enrolment) algorithm using CABs and HR was superior to New York Heart Association classification in detecting patients more likely to have HF decompensation (sensitivity and specificity of 61% and 68% vs. 46% and 55%, respectively).

Conclusions

This prospective international registry showed that an algorithm incorporating CABs and HR data detected HF events 30 days in advance of the event in patients with HFrEF during first 3 months after hospital discharge. Therefore, integrating CAB technology into clinical practice may prevent HF rehospitalizations.

Over- and undersensing-pitfalls of arrhythmia detection with implantable devices and wearables

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a cornerstone of arrhythmia and heart failure detection as well as management. In recent years new kinds of devices have emerged which can be used subcutaneously or worn on the skin. In particular for large-scale arrhythmia monitoring, small, unobtrusive gadgets seem positioned to upend paradigms and care delivery. However, the performance of CIEDs and wearables is only as good as their sensing and detection capacities. Whether for pacing, defibrillation or diagnostic monitoring, the device must be able to process and filter the sensed signal to reduce noise and to exclude irrelevant physiological signals. The demands on sensing and detection quality will differ depending on how the information is applied. With a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter/defibrillator, withheld or erroneous therapy can have severe consequences and accurate and reliable detection of cardiac function is crucial. Monitoring devices are usually used in risk assessment and management, with greater tolerance for isolated artefacts or lower quality of readings. This review discusses sensing and detection and the performance to date by CIEDs as well as subcutaneous and wearable devices.

Effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators in the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest - Results from a health technology assessment

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in adult persons with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest and for which an implantable cardioverter is currently not applicable.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CRD-databases. Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently. Data were presented quantitatively; due to heterogeneity of studies no meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

One randomized-controlled trial (RCT), one non-randomized comparative trial, and forty-four non-comparative trials were included. The RCT reported an overall mortality of 3.1 percent in the WCD group versus 4.9 percent in controls (relative risk [RR]: .64; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], .43-.98, p = .04), but no significant effect on arrhythmia-related mortality. The RR for arrhythmia-related mortality amounted to .67 (95 percent CI, .37-1.21, p = .18) as assessed in the RCT. Appropriate shocks were observed in 1.3 percent of patients in both comparative studies, and inappropriate shocks in .6 percent of patients in the RCT. Termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) was successful in 75 to 100 percent of appropriate shocks in all studies. Adverse events assessed in the RCT showed a lower incidence of shortness of breath (38.8 percent vs. 45.3 percent; p = .004), higher incidence of rash at any location (15.3 percent vs. 7.1 percent; p < .001), and higher incidence of itching at any location (17.2 percent vs. 6.4 percent; p < .001) for WCD.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence demonstrates that the WCD detects and terminates VT/VF events reliably and shows a high rate of appropriate shocks in mixed patient populations. Data of large registries confirm that the WCD is a safe intervention.

Mortality and Costs Associated with Wearable Cardioverter-defibrillators after Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Medicare Claims Data

Ventricular arrhythmias are common in the early period after myocardial infarction (MI), with the highest risk occurring in the immediate postinfarct window. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) has been proven to have efficacy in treating sudden cardiac arrest in patients soon after MI. However, data concerning clinical and health economic outcomes of WCD usage among Medicare patients have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the clinical and health economic impacts of WCD use among Medicare patients hospitalized for MI. A 5% sample of Medicare’s Standard Analytical Files (2010–2012) was used to identify patients. Beneficiaries with an acute inpatient admission for acute MI were stratified by WCD presence and absence, respectively. Baseline clinical history, all-cause mortality, and the total cost of health-care expenditures over one year were collected. In total, 16,935 patients were included in the final analysis; of these, 89 were placed in the WCD group and 16,846 were placed in the non-WCD group. Overall, WCD patients were younger (70 versus 74 years of age; p < 0.001), more likely to be male (74.2% versus 57.4%; p = 0.002), and more likely to have congestive heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias prior to the indexed acute MI. At 30 days, the mortality rate in the WCD group (not reported due to volume < 11 Medicare beneficiaries) was lower in comparison with the non-WCD group (10.4%; p = 0.18). At one year, the adjusted mortality rates were 11.5% for the WCD group and 19.8% for the non-WCD group (hazard ratio: 0.46; p = 0.017). For the WCD group, the one-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $12,373 per life-year gained. Among Medicare beneficiaries, WCD use after an acute MI was associated with better 30-day and one-year survival. Thus, our findings indicate that WCD use was cost-effective in the present sample of Medicare patients.

Protected risk stratification with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from the WEARIT-II-EUROPE registry

Background

The prospective WEARIT-II-EUROPE registry aimed to assess the value of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) prior to potential ICD implantation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction considered at risk of sudden arrhythmic death.

Methods and results

781 patients (77% men; mean age 59.3 ± 13.4 years) with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were consecutively enrolled. All patients received a WCD. Follow-up time for all patients was 12 months. Mean baseline LVEF was 26.9%. Mean WCD wearing time was 75 ± 47.7 days, mean daily WCD use 20.3 ± 4.6 h. WCD shocks terminated 13 VT/VF events in ten patients (1.3%). Two patients died during WCD prescription of non-arrhythmic cause. Mean LVEF increased from 26.9 to 36.3% at the end of WCD prescription (p < 0.01). After WCD use, ICDs were implanted in only 289 patients (37%). Forty patients (5.1%) died during follow-up. Five patients (1.7%) died with ICDs implanted, 33 patients (7%) had no ICD (no information on ICD in two patients). The majority of patients (75%) with the follow-up of 12 months after WCD prescription died from heart failure (15 patients) and non-cardiac death (15 patients). Only three patients (7%) died suddenly. In seven patients, the cause of death remained unknown.

Conclusions

Mortality after WCD prescription was mainly driven by heart failure and non-cardiovascular death. In patients with HFrEF and a potential risk of sudden arrhythmic death, WCD protected observation of LVEF progression and appraisal of competing risks of potential non-arrhythmic death may enable improved selection for beneficial ICD implantation.

Graphic abstract

Impact of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator compliance on outcomes in the VEST trial: As-treated and per-protocol analyses

BACKGROUND

Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial did not demonstrate a significant reduction in arrhythmic death with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD), but compliance with the device may have substantially affected the results. ThePletcher influence of WCD compliance on outcomes has not yet been fully evaluated.

METHODS

Using linear and pooled logistic models, we performed as-treated analyses omitting person-time in the hospital and adjusted for correlates of WCD compliance. To assess the impact of early stopping of WCD, we performed a per-protocol Kaplan-Meier analysis, censoring after the last day the WCD was worn. Interactions of potential effect modifiers with treatment assignment and WCD compliance on outcomes were investigated. Finally, we used linear models to identify predictors of WCD compliance.

RESULTS

A per-protocol analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total (P < .001) and arrhythmic (P = .001) mortality. Better WCD compliance was independently predicted by cardiac arrest during index myocardial infarction (MI), higher Cr, diabetes, prior heart failure, EF ≤ 25%, Polish enrolling center and number of WCD alarms, while worse compliance was predicted by being divorced, Asian race, higher body mass index, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, or any WCD shock. Neither excluding time in hospital from the as-treated analysis nor adjustment for factors affecting WCD compliance materially changed the results. No variable demonstrated a significant interaction in either the intention-to-treat or as-treated analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robust sensitivity analyses of as-treated and per-protocol analyses suggest that the WCD is protective in compliant patients with ejection fraction less than or equal to 35% during the first 3 months post-MI.

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators: A review of evidence and indications

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) was first approved for clinical use in 2002, and is routinely used in select populations at high risk for sudden cardiac death. WCDs are frequently considered as a bridge to definitive therapy or in circumstances where insertion of conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) is temporarily contraindicated. In this review, we summarize the literature on WCDs. From prospective trials to the first randomized controlled trial with WCD, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the WCD is safe and effective. In the first randomized controlled trial of the WCD (VEST Trial), there was no reduction in arrhythmia death but there was a reduction in all-cause mortality. We discuss the mortality impact, rate of inappropriate shocks, compliance, and potential quality of life implications with the WCD. Finally, we present the evidence for WCD use in select populations (e.g., post-myocardial infarction, device extraction), and the current guideline recommendations for WCD use.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapy in Heart Failure

The population of patients with heart failure continues to grow, which introduced significant challenges in clinical practice related to the management of cardiac arrhythmia and advanced heart failure syndromes. Device therapy has increasingly become essential in the management of life-threatening arrhythmia and clinical heart failure in this population. This review will discuss the use of cardiac implantable electronic devices in heart failure with primary focus on sudden cardiac death prevention and cardiac resynchronization, including published evidence and evolving technologies.

The AngelMed Guardian® System in the Detection of Coronary Artery Occlusion: Current Perspectives

Total ischemic time, which specifies the time from the onset of chest pain to initiation of reperfusion during percutaneous coronary intervention, consists of two intervals: symptom to door time and door to balloon time. A door to balloon time of 90 mins or less has become a quality-of-care metric in the management of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). While national efforts made by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have curtailed in-hospital door to balloon time over the years, a reduction in pre-hospital symptoms to door time presents a challenge in modern interventional Cardiology. Early and complete revascularization has been associated with improved clinical outcomes in MI and strategies that may help reduce symptom to door time, and thus the total ischemic time, are crucial. Rapidly evolving ST-segment changes commonly develop prior to ischemia-related symptom onset, and are detectable even in patients with clinically unrecognized silent MIs. Therefore, a highly intelligent ischemia detection system that alerts patients of ST segment deviation may allow for rapid identification of acute coronary occlusion. The AngelMed Guardian^® System is a cardiac activity monitoring and alerting system designed for rapid identification of intracardiac ST-segment changes among patients at a high risk for recurrent ACS events. This article reviews the clinical studies evaluating the design, safety and efficacy of the AngelMed Guardian System and discusses the clinical implications of the device.

Who Should Receive a Wearable Defibrillator Vest at Hospital Discharge?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the role of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) vests in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in at-risk populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of randomized-controlled trials with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) therapy is well established in randomized clinical trials in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Although the benefits are not as clear in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, meta-analyses show significant mortality benefits from immediate electrical cardioversion strategies. The role of WCDs in at-risk populations in whom ICD therapy is temporarily not indicated is not as well-established. Smaller cohort trials have shown efficacy in patients with newly-diagnosed cardiomyopathy, requiring temporary ICD explantation, and others with less common indications for WCD therapy. The Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial was a landmark randomized control study seeking to examine the benefits of WCD therapy in at-risk population, and although the primary endpoint of reducing arrhythmic death was not reached, the structure of the trial and significant differences in total mortality make a compelling case for continued use of WCD therapies in our healthcare systems.

Extended use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death

Aims

Data on outcomes in patients using the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) > 90 days are limited. We aimed to analyse the clinical course of patients with WCD use ≤90 days vs. WCD use >90 days.

Methods and results

We assessed arrhythmia events during WCD use, and ejection fraction (EF) improvement/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at the end of WCD use in patients with WCD use ≤90 days vs. WCD use >90 days enrolled in the WEARIT-II registry, further assessed by disease aetiology (ischaemic vs. non-ischaemic vs. congenital/inherited heart disease). There were 981 (49%) patients with WCD use >90 days, and 1019 patients with WCD use ≤90 days (median 120 vs. 55 days). There was a lower incidence of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) events (11 vs. 50 events per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001), WCD treated VT/VF events (1 vs. 8 events per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001), and non-sustained VT events (21 vs. 51 events per 100 patient-years, P = 0.008) with WCD use >90 vs. WCD use ≤90 days. Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients presented with similar rates of sustained VT/VF events during WCD use >90 vs. ≤90 days (13.4 vs. 13.7 events per 100 patient-years, P = 0.314), while most of these events terminated spontaneously. One-third of the patients with extended WCD use further improved their EF and they were not implanted with an ICD, with similar rates among ischaemic and non-ischaemic patients.

Conclusions

In WEARIT-II, patients with extended WCD use >90 days remain at risk for ventricular arrhythmia events. One-third of the patients with WCD use >90 days further improved their EF, avoiding the need to consider ICD implantation.

Candida tropicalis defibrillator endocarditis: A case report and review of current literature

We provide a review of current literature and report on a case of electronic device infective endocarditis with C. tropicalis. A 64-year-old man presented for revision of his implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Echocardiography revealed extensive vegetations attached to the Eustachian valve and in the right ventricular apex. Microbiological findings presented C. tropicalis on the explanted material. The patient refused additional surgical intervention. We successfully treated the patient with liposomal Amphotericin B and Flucytosine for 8 weeks.

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator vest: Indications and ongoing questions

Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among specific high-risk populations. However, it remains unclear how to optimally treat those patients who are at elevated risk of cardiac arrest but are not among the presently identified groups proven to benefit from an ICD, are unable to tolerate surgical device implantation, or refuse invasive therapies. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is an alternative antiarrhythmic device that provides continuous cardiac monitoring and defibrillation capabilities through a noninvasive, electrode-based system. The WCD has been shown to be highly effective at restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with a ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and one randomized trial using the WCD in patients with recent myocardial infarction at elevated risk for arrhythmic death reported a decrease in overall mortality despite no SCD mortality benefit. The current clinical indications for WCD use are varied and continue to evolve as experience with this technology increases.

Use of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in association with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation-related tachycardiomyopathy

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an effective therapy in patients known to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Nevertheless, ICD implantation is not indicated in transient or reversible causes of SCD. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is increasingly used for SCD prevention in patients with a transient risk of ventricular arrhythmia.

Risk factors for sudden cardiac death to determine high risk patients in specific patient populations that may benefit from a wearable defibrillator

BACKGROUND

There is a high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in certain patient groups that would not meet criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. In conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) there are clear risk scores that help define patients who are high risk for SCD and would benefit from ICD therapy. There are however many areas of uncertainty such as certain patients post myocardial infarction (MI). These patients are high risk for SCD but there is no clear tool for risk stratifying such patients.

AIM

To assess risk factors for sudden cardiac death in major cardiac disorders and to help select patients who might benefit from Wearable cardiac defibrillators (WCD).

METHODS

A literature search was performed looking for risk factors for SCD in patients post-MI, patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), HCM, long QT syndrome (LQTS). There were 41 studies included and risk factors and the relative risks for SCD were compiled in table form.

RESULTS

We extracted data on relative risk for SCD of specific variables such as age, gender, ejection fraction. The greatest risk factors for SCD in post MI patients was the presence of diabetes [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.90-3.80], in patient with LVSD was ventricular tachycardia (Relative risk 3.50), in LQTS was a prolonged QTc (HR 36.53) and in patients with HCM was LVH greater than 20 mm (HR 3.10). A proportion of patients currently not suitable for ICD might benefit from a WCD

CONCLUSION

There is a very high risk of SCD post MI, in patients with LVSD, HCM and LQTS even in those who do not meet criteria for ICD implantation. These patients may be candidates for a WCD. The development of more sensitive risk calculators to predict SCD is necessary in these patients to help guide treatment.

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to synthesize the available evidence on the use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD).

BACKGROUND

Observational WCD studies for the prevention of sudden cardiac death have provided conflicting data. The VEST (Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death) trial was the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing no reduction in sudden cardiac death as compared to medical therapy only.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for studies reporting on the outcomes of patients wearing WCDs from January 1, 2001, through March 20, 2018. Rates of appropriate and inappropriate WCD therapies were pooled. Estimates were derived using DerSimonian and Laird's method.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included (N = 33,242; 27 observational, 1 RCT-WCD arm). The incidence of appropriate WCD therapy was 5 per 100 persons over 3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0 to 6.0, I² = 93%). In studies on ischemic cardiomyopathy, the appropriate WCD therapy incidence was lower in the VEST trial (1 per 100 persons over 3 months; 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.0) as compared with observational studies (11 per 100 persons over 3 months; 95% CI: 11.0 to 20.0; I² = 93%). The incidence of inappropriate therapy was 2 per 100 persons over 3 months (95% CI: 1.0 to 3.0; I² = 93%). Mortality while wearing WCD was rare at 0.7 per 100 persons over 3 months (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.7; I² = 94%).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of appropriately treated WCD patients over 3 months of follow-up was substantial; higher in-observational studies as compared with the VEST trial. There was significant heterogeneity. More RCTs are needed to justify continued use of WCD in primary prevention.