The wearable cardioverter defibrillator as a bridge to reimplantation in patients with ICD or CRT-D-related infections

Delayed Improvement of Left Ventricular Function in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Depends on Etiology—A PROLONG-II Substudy

In patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), three months of optimal therapy are recommended before considering a primary preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). It is unclear which patients benefit from a prolonged waiting period under protection of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) to avoid unnecessary ICD implantations. This study included all patients receiving a WCD for newly diagnosed HFrEF (n = 353) at our center between 2012 and 2017. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. From baseline until three months, LVEF improved in patients with all peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). Beyond this time, LVEF improved in PPCM and DCM only (10 ± 8% and 10 ± 12%, respectively), whereas patients with ICM showed no further improvement. The patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF were compared to 29 patients with a distinct WCD indication, which is an explantation of an infected ICD. This latter group had a higher incidence of WCD shocks and poorer overall survival. All-cause mortality should be considered when deciding on WCD prescription. In patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF, the potential for delayed LVEF recovery should be considered when timing ICD implantation, especially in patients with PPCM and DCM.

Cost-minimization analysis of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator in adult patients undergoing ICD explant procedures: Clinical and economic implications

Aims

Patients with permanently increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) can be protected by implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). If an ICD must be removed due to infection, for example, immediate reimplantation might not be possible or indicated. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe and effective solution to protect patients from SCD during this high‐risk bridging period. Very few economic evaluations on WCD use are currently available.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence of WCD in patients undergoing ICD explant/lead extraction. Additionally, a decision model was developed to compare use and costs of the WCD with standard therapy (in‐hospital stay). For this purpose, a cost‐minimization analysis was conducted, and complemented by a one‐way sensitivity analysis.

Results

In the base case scenario, the WCD was less expensive compared to standard therapy. The cost‐minimization analysis showed a cost reduction of €1782 per patient using the WCD. If costs of standard care were changed, cost savings associated with the WCD varied from €3500 to €0, assuming costs for standard care of €6800 to €3600.

Conclusion

After ICD explantation, patients can be safely and effectively protected from SCD after hospital discharge through WCD utilization. Furthermore, the use of a WCD for this patient group is cost saving when compared to standard therapy.

Impact of delayed device re-implantation on outcomes of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic device related infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Optimal timing of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) re-implantation following device removal due to infection is undefined. Multinational guidelines reflect this and include no specific recommendation for this timing, while others have recommended waiting at least 14 days in cases of CIED related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE). The current work seeks to clarify this issue.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed institutional data at Mayo Clinic, Minnesota of patients aged ≥ 18 years who developed CIED-IE from January 1, 1991 to February 1, 2016. CIED-IE was defined as echocardiogram reported device lead or valvular vegetation. Regression analyses were used to relate the risk of clinical outcomes to the interval between CIED removal and re-implantation and the location of vegetations.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients met study inclusion criteria. A majority (68.8%) of patients were men and the median age was 68.0 years. Transoesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) was performed in 95.4% of patients, with valve vegetations detected in 33.9% (n = 37). Survival analysis comparing patients in whom device re-implantation was < 14 days vs. ≥14 days, and further categorized by those with and without valve vegetation, showed a significant difference (P = 0.028); patients with valve vegetation and reimplantation interval < 14 days had the lowest (58.7%) 12-month survival. When adjusted for valve vegetation, longer time interval for reimplantation trended toward increased hospital length of stay (P = 0.079).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the recommended 14-day delay between CIED extraction and re-implantation in CIED-IE patients is associated with a survival benefit, but longer length of hospital stay following re-implantation.

Prognosis of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction after transvenous lead extraction and the need for additional hemodynamic support in the perioperative period

BACKGROUND

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is necessary because of system infection, lead malfunction, or system upgrade. Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (SLVD) undergoing TLE may be at a higher risk because hemodynamic parameters may change unfavorably during or after TLE; however, this has not yet been clarified.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine whether patients with SLVD undergoing TLE have higher mortality.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TLE were stratified as follows: patients with ejection fraction ≤ 35% (SLVD group) and those with ejection fraction > 35% (non-SLVD group).

RESULTS

We assessed the data of 200 patients [SLVD group, 36 (18%); non-SLVD group, 164 (82%)]). Brain natriuretic peptide level and cardiac resynchronization therapy rate were higher in the SLVD group than in the non-SLVD group. There were no significant between-group differences in major complications and clinical success rates. Patients with SLVD were more likely to require additional hemodynamic support, such as catecholamine infusion, temporary atrium-ventricle sequential pacing, and temporary cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing (27.8% vs 1.2%; P < .001). The survival rate was not significantly different between the groups at 30 days and 1 year after TLE (SLVD vs non-SLVD: 30 days: 97.2% vs 99.4%; P = .215; 1 year: 80.6% vs 91.5%; P = .053). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed log brain natriuretic peptide and serum hemoglobin levels as predictors for 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis after TLE was comparable between patients with and without SLVD. However, additional hemodynamic support was often necessary for patients with SLVD.

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.

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.

Reimplantation After Lead Removal

The number of implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly in the last 30 years, which has led to an upsurge in CIED complications, such as infection and lead malfunction requiring CIED extraction. The decision-making process of CIED reimplantation requires meticulous planning that includes careful consideration of several aspects: the reason for extraction, the indication for CIED reimplantation, patients' wishes, timing of reimplantation, the need for a bridging device, and the type and location of device to be reimplanted. In this article, the authors review this decision-making process and the necessary steps to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

[Wearable defibrillator : Current evidence]

The wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) is safe and effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, and has found its way into international guidelines and clinical practice. Nearly 40,000 patients with a WCD have been published in clinical registries and one randomized study has recently been presented. Especially patients with newly diagnosed cardiomyopathy with severely reduced left ventricular function show an increased risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and may benefit from a WCD. In these patients without an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), the WCD offers protection from sudden cardiac death during initiation and optimization of heart failure medication. Critical patient selection and structured patient management is crucial for successful WCD prescription. This review gives an overview of the current data and recommendations on WCD.

Misunderstood or Mistrusted? The Under-Utilization of the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Clinical Practice

Annually in the United States, sudden cardiac death (including out-of-hospital cardiac arrests) is responsible for over 300,000 deaths, comprising 40%-50% of total mortality rates from cardiovascular disease. Among the highest-risk patients are those with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 35%-40%). However, not everyone is a candidate for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. In 2002, the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) gained Food and Drug Administration approval for its efficacy in the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest or death in certain at-risk populations and has been making its way into national guidelines with Class IIa to IIb strength of evidence. Despite the prevalence of sudden cardiac death and the demonstrated efficacy of the WCD, this technology remains under-prescribed. This study seeks to explicate the potential causes for under-utilization of WCDs and offer means of overcoming barriers to its use. Among these reasons include confusion about the guidelines and when to prescribe, who can prescribe the device, and debate about whether the WCD is efficacious based on recent studies. Other social barriers to prescription include cost and adherence to therapy by the patient. This study sets the stage for further research on the improvement of education about the device and opens discourse about its prescription in clinical practice.