Automatic daily remote monitoring in heart failure patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator: a single-centre observational pilot study

Key influences of VDD (DX) ICD selection: Results from a prospective, national survey

BACKGROUND

To preserve the benefit of atrial sensing without the implantation of an additional lead, a single-lead ICD system with a floating atrial dipole (DX ICD) has been developed. The purpose of this nationwide survey was to provide an overview of the current key influences of device selection focusing on DX ICD and to test the applicability of a previously published decision-making flowchart of ICD-type selection.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to all implanting centers in Hungary. Eleven centers reported data from 361 DX ICD and 10 CRT-DX systems implantations between February 2021 and May 2023.

RESULTS

The most important influencing clinical factors indicated by the participating doctors were elevated risk of atrial fibrillation (AF)/stroke (56%), risk of sinus/supraventricular tachycardias (SVT) (42%), and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future (36%). The DX ICD was considered in the majority of cases instead of the VVI system (87%), and only in a small proportion instead of a DDD ICD (13%). 60% of the patients with DX ICDs were also included into remote monitoring-based follow-up. In 83% of the cases, good (>2 mV) or excellent (>5) atrial signal amplitude was recorded within 6 weeks after the implantation.

CONCLUSION

In the current national survey, the most important influencing factors indicated by the implanters for selecting a DX ICD were the elevated risk of stroke or sinus/SVT and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future. These findings support the use of a previously published decision-making flowchart.

Impact of remote monitoring in heart failure patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices during COVID-19 pandemic: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread into a pandemic affecting healthcare providers worldwide. Heart failure patients with implanted cardiac devices require close follow-up in-spite of pandemic related healthcare restrictions.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively registered and clinical outcomes were compared of 61 remote monitored (RMG) versus 71 conventionally (in-office only) followed (CFG) cardiac device implanted, heart failure patients. Follow-up length was 12 months, during the COVID-19 pandemic related intermittent insitutional restrictions. We used a specified heart failure detection algorithm in RMG. This investigation compared worsening heart failure-, arrhythmia- and device related adverse events as primary outcome and heart failure hospitalization rates as secondary outcome in the two patient groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the primary composite end-point during the first 12 months of COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.672). In RMG, patients who had worsening heart failure event had relative modest deterioration in heart failure functional class (p = 0.026), relative lower elevation of N terminal-pro BNP levels (p < 0.01) at in-office evaluation and were less hospitalized for worsening heart failure in the first 6 months of pandemic (p = 0.012) compared to CFG patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Specified remote monitoring alert-based detection algorithm and workflow in device implanted heart failure patients may potentially indicate early worsening in heart failure status. Preemptive adequate intervention may prevent further progression of deteriorating heart failure and thus prevent heart failure hospitalizations.