Extended follow-up after wearable cardioverter-defibrillator period: the PROLONG-II study

Cost-Utility Analysis of LifeVest® in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients at Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in England

BACKGROUND

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) within the first months after a myocardial infarction (MI). The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe and effective solution which can protect patients from SCD during the first months after an MI, when the risk of SCD is at its peak. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of WCD combined with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) compared to GDMT alone, after MI in the English National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A multi-state Markov model, with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, was developed to evaluate WCD + GDMT compared with GDMT alone, over a lifetime time horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the pivotal randomised controlled trial and literature. The outcomes were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually, with overall results presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that WCD + GDMT is potentially a cost-effective option with an ICER of £23,024 per QALY gained, which is in the acceptable willingness to pay threshold (WTP) range of £20,000-£30,000 set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that WCD + GDMT has 89.3% and 23% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of £30,000 and £20,000, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of WCD in patients post-MI is potentially a cost-effective use of resources for the NHS and improves clinical outcomes amongst adherent patients and in circumstances where implantable cardioverter defibrillators are not indicated by the guidelines.

Therapy duration and improvement of ventricular function in de novo heart failure: the Heart Failure Optimization study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy. However, improvement may not be completed within 90 days.

METHODS

Patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2017 and 2022 from 68 sites were enrolled, starting with a registry phase for 3 months and followed by a study phase up to 1 year. The primary endpoints were LVEF improvement > 35% between Days 90 and 180 following guideline-recommended medical therapy initiation and the percentage of target dose reached at Days 90 and 180.

RESULTS

A total of 598 patients with de novo HFrEF [59 years (interquartile range 51-68), 27% female] entered the study phase. During the first 180 days, a significant increase in dosage of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was observed (P < .001). At Day 90, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41%-50%] of study phase patients had LVEF improvement > 35%; 46% (95% CI 40%-52%) of those with persistently low LVEF at Day 90 had LVEF improvement > 35% by Day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement > 35% to 68% (95% CI 63%-72%). In 392 patients followed for 360 days, improvement > 35% was observed in 77% (95% CI 72%-81%) of the patients. Until Day 90, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were observed in 24 wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers (1.8%). After 90 days, no sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous optimization of guideline-recommended medical therapy for at least 180 days in HFrEF is associated with additional LVEF improvement > 35%, allowing for better decision-making regarding preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

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.

Dynamic changes in nocturnal heart rate predict short-term cardiovascular events in patients using the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: from the WEARIT-France cohort study

AIMS

While elevated resting heart rate measured at a single point of time has been associated with cardiovascular outcomes, utility of continuous monitoring of nocturnal heart rate (NHR) has never been evaluated. We hypothesized that dynamic NHR changes may predict, at short term, impending cardiovascular events in patients equipped with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The WEARIT-France prospective cohort study enrolled heart failure patients with WCD between 2014 and 2018. Night-time was defined as midnight to 7 a.m. NHR initial trajectories were classified into four categories based on mean NHR in the first week (High/Low) and NHR evolution over the second week (Up/Down) of WCD use. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization. A total of 1013 [61 (interquartile range, IQR 53-68) years, 16% women, left ventricular ejection fraction 26% (IQR 22-30)] were included. During a median WCD wear duration of 68 (IQR 44-90) days, 58 patients (6%) experienced 69 events. After considering potential confounders, High-Up NHR trajectory was significantly associated with the primary endpoint compared to Low-Down [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56-14.45, P < 0.001]. Additionally, a rise of >5 bpm in weekly average NHR from the preceding week was associated with 2.5 higher composite event risk (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.22-5.18, P = 0.012) as well as total mortality (HR 11.21, 95% CI 3.55-35.37, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51-4.82, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic monitoring of NHR may allow timely identification of impending cardiovascular events, with the potential for 'pre-emptive' action.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03319160.

Assessing physical activity with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure

Background

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD), (LifeVest, ZOLL, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) is a medical device designed for the temporary detection and treatment of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. WCD telemonitoring features enable the evaluation of the physical activity (PhA) of the patients. We sought to assess with the WCD the PhA of patients with newly diagnosed heart failure.

Methods

We collected and analyzed the data of all patients treated with the WCD in our clinic. Patients with newly diagnosed ischemic, or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and severely reduced ejection fraction, who were treated with the WCD for at least 28 consecutive days and had a compliance of at least 18 h the day were included.

Results

Seventy-seven patients were eligible for analysis. Thirty-seven patients suffered from ischemic and 40 from non-ischemic heart disease. The average days the WCD was carried was 77.3 ± 44.6 days and the mean wearing time was 22.8 ± 2.1 h. The patients showed significantly increased PhA measured by daily steps between the first two and the last two weeks (Mean steps in the first 2 weeks: 4,952.6 ± 3,052.7 vs. mean steps in the last 2 weeks: 6,119.6 ± 3,776.2, p-value:  < 0.001). In the end of the surveillance period an increase of the ejection fraction was observed (LVEF-before: 25.8 ± 6.6% vs. LVEF-after: 37.5 ± 10.6%, p < 0.001). Improvement of the EF did not correlate with the improvement of PhA.

Conclusion

The WCD provides useful information regarding patient PhA and may be additionally utilized for early heart failure treatment adjustment.

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.

The Heart Failure Optimization Study (HF-OPT): rationale and design

BACKGROUND

According to the current guidelines, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) should not be considered until optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has been achieved for a minimum of 3 months. Optimization of GDMT often needs time beyond 3 months after diagnosis. The aim of the Heart Failure Optimization Study (HF-OPT) is to evaluate the recovery of left ventricular function beyond 3 months after diagnosis of newly diagnosed HFrEF.

METHODS

The HF-OPT multicenter study is comprised of two non-randomized phases (registry and study). During the first 90 days a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is prescribed and patients are enrolled in an observational pre-study registry. Registry subjects meeting inclusion criteria for the study portion at day 90 have ongoing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reassessment at 90, 180 and 360 days after the index hospital discharge, regardless of continued WCD use. Approximately 600 subjects will be enrolled in the study portion. Of those, one-third are anticipated to start the study phase at day 90 with reduced LVEF. The primary objective of this study is to observe the rate of recovery of LVEF > 35% between 90 and 180 days, while key secondary endpoints include mortality and WCD recorded arrhythmias and shocks.

DISCUSSION

The HF-OPT study will provide important information on the rate of additional recovery of LVEF > 35%, between 90 and 180 days, in newly diagnosed HF with reduced LVEF patients being titrated with GDMT. The results of the study may impact indications for primary prophylactic ICD implantation.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

Usage of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator during pregnancy

Background

Pregnancy can trigger or aggravate the risk for life-threating arrhythmias in cardiac diseases. Pregnancy is associated with reluctance for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) due to concerns about radiation. Thus, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) might be an option during pregnancy. Aim of the study was to collect experiences about the use of WCD in pregnancy.

Methods and results

This study retrospectively included eight women who received a WCD during pregnancy. They suffered from ventricular tachycardia (VT) without known cardiac disease (n = 3), Brugada syndrome (n = 1), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 1), non-compaction (n = 1), and survived sudden cardiac arrest during a preceding pregnancy (n = 1). WCD usage was started between 13 and 28 weeks of gestation. WCD wearing period ranged from 3 days to 30.9 weeks, WCD wearing time ranged from 13.0 to 23.7 h per day. Two women (25%) abandoned WCD already during pregnancy. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate WCD shocks were recorded. Antiarrhythmic management included beta-blockers (n = 5) and flecainide (n = 2). After delivery, ICD were implanted (n = 4), refused (n = 2) and estimated not necessary after successful catheter ablation (n = 2).

Conclusion

Uneventful pregnancy is possible in women at risk for sudden cardiac death by interdisciplinary monitoring and diligent pharmacotherapy protected by the WCD. Since no WCD shocks were recorded, the effectiveness of WCD during pregnancy is still unclear. However, arrhythmia detection by WCD was very good despite the changed anatomy in pregnancy. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary to assess effectiveness of WCD in pregnant women. Furthermore, efforts should be made to increase the wearing adherence of WCD during pregnancy.

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.

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.

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.