Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator as a bridge to cardiac transplantation: A national database analysis

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention: From implantation to heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

The frequency, characteristics and outcomes of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients who eventually undergo heart transplantation (HT) during follow-up have not been well described.

AIMS

In a cohort of patients with heart failure implanted with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, to identify those at high risk of subsequent HT and evaluate ICD usefulness.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2012, 5539 patients received a primary prevention ICD across 12 centers, and were enrolled in the DAI-PP programme, including 5427 with full HT information available.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 1024 days (interquartile range 484-1702 days), 176 (3.2%) patients underwent HT. Median duration between ICD implantation and HT was 484 days (IQR 169-1117 days). Among those aged≤65 years (theoretical age limit for HT registration in France), the overall incidence per 1000 person-years was 18.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.32-20.74). Left ventricular ejection fraction<25% (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.43, 95% CI: 2.34-5.04; P<0.0001), younger age (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.96; P<0.0001), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV (HR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.79-4.00; P<0.0001) and no cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.39-3.14; P=0.0004) were independently associated with HT. Patients with these three characteristics (excluding age) had a 1-year HT rate of 15.2%. Incidence of appropriate ICD therapies was 92.7 per 1000 person-years for patients who underwent HT versus 76.1 for those who did not (P=0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of HT in this primary prevention population was relatively high, especially among young patients with a very low ejection fraction, an advanced NYHA class and were unsuitable for cardiac resynchronization therapy (up to 15% annually). Patients awaiting HT experienced a significant rate of appropriate ICD therapies, reinforcing the importance of specific cardiac rhythm management in these patients.

Use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) and WCD-based remote rhythm monitoring in a real-life patient cohort

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) was introduced to provide protection from sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with transiently elevated risk or during ongoing risk stratification. Benefits and clinical characteristics of routine WCD use remain to be assessed in larger patient populations. This study aims to identify determinants of WCD compliance, therapies, and inappropriate alarms in a real-life cohort. A total of 106 cases (68.9% male) were included between 11/2010 and 04/2016. WCD therapies, automatically recorded arrhythmia episodes, inappropriate WCD alarms, patient compliance, and outcome after WCD prescription were analyzed. Median duration of WCD use was 58.5 days. Average daily wearing time was 22.7 h. Compliance was reduced in patients ≤ 50 years. Three patients received WCD therapies (2.8%). In one case ventricular fibrillation (VF) was appropriately terminated with the first shock. Two patients received inappropriate WCD therapies due to WCD algorithm activation during ventricular pacemaker stimulation. One patient died of asystole while carrying a WCD (0.9%). Additional arrhythmias detected comprised self-terminating sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT; 2.8%), non-sustained VT (2.8%), and supraventricular arrhythmias (5.7%). Inappropriate WCD alarms due to over-/undersensing occurred in 77/106 patients (72.6%), of which 41 (38.7%) experienced ≥ 10 inappropriate WCD alarms during the prescription period. Thirteen patients (12.3%) displayed a mean of > 1 inappropriate alarms/day. WCD use was associated with high compliance and provided protection from VT/VF-related SCD. The majority of patients experienced inappropriate WCD alarms. Alterations in QRS morphology during pacemaker stimulation require consideration in WCD programming to prevent inappropriate alarms.

Outcomes after asystole events occurring during wearable defibrillator-cardioverter use

AIM

To examine whether wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) alarms for asystole improve patient outcomes and survival.

METHODS

All asystole episodes recorded by the WCD in 2013 were retrospectively analyzed from a database of device and medical record documentation and customer call reports. Events were classified as asystole episodes if initial presenting arrhythmia was asystole (< 10 beats/minor ≥ 5 s pause). Survival was defined as recovery at the scene or arrival to a medical facility alive, or not requiring immediate medical attention. Episodes occurring in hospitals, nursing homes, or ambulances were considered to be under medical care. Serious asystole episodes were defined as resulting in unconsciousness, hospital transfer, or death.

RESULTS

Of the total 51933 patients having worn the WCD in 2013, there were 257 patients (0.5%) who had asystole episodes and comprised the study cohort. Among the 257 patients (74% male, median age 69 years), there were 264 asystole episodes. Overall patient survival was 42%. Most asystoles were considered “serious” (n = 201 in 201 patients, 76%), with a 26% survival rate. All 56 patients with “non-serious” asystole episodes survived. Being under medical care was associated with worse survival of serious asystoles. Among acute survivors, 20% later died during WCD use (a median 4 days post asystole episode). Of the 86 living patients at the end of WCD use period, 48 (56%) received ICD/pacemaker and 17 (20%) improved their condition.

CONCLUSION

Survival rates after asystole in patients with WCD are higher than historically reported survival rates. Those under medical care at time of asystole exhibited lower survival.

Clinical Usefulness of Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) and Current Understanding of Its Clinical Indication in Japan

Prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) has become an important issue in today's cardiovascular field, together with various developments in secondary prevention of basic cardiac diseases. The importance of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is now widely accepted because it has exhibited significant improvement in patients' prognoses in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiovascular diseases. However, there is an unignorable gap between the ICD indication in the guidelines and real-world high-risk patients for SCD, especially in the acute recovery phase of cardiac injury. Although various studies have demonstrated a clinical benefit of defibrillation devices, the studies of immediate ICD use in the acute recovery phase have failed to exhibit a benefit in patients from the point of the view of a decrease in total deaths. To bridge this gap, the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) provides a safer observation period in the acute phase and eliminates inappropriate overuse of ICD in the subacute phase. Here, we discuss the usefulness of the WCD and current understanding of its indications based on various clinical data. In conclusion, WCD is a feasible bridge to therapy and/or safe observation for patients at high risk of SCD, especially in the acute recovery phase of cardiac diseases.

Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator "The Lifevest": Device Design, Limitations, and Areas of Improvement

Sudden cardiac death is a potentially fatal clinical event demanding use of emergent intervention such as defibrillation. Over the last 1 decade, development of devices such as implantable and wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) has provided new avenues in the management of sudden cardiac death. Several clinical studies have commented on the therapeutic and preventive aspect of WCD, however, literature describing the device functioning and limitations is limited. In this review study, we describe the technical aspects and limitations of WCD with a focus on identifying potential areas of improvement and framework for future research studies.

Subcutaneous defibrillator implantation as a bridge until left ventricular function normalizes

Patients with reversible cardiac impairment may be, at least temporarily, at high risk of SCD and may go unprotected for considerable time. A less‐invasive definitive or bridge solution is the implantation of a subcutaneous cardioverter–defibrillator (S‐ICD). The less invasiveness of this procedure ensures easy removal of the system without exposing the patient to the risk of complications.

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: current technology and evolving indications

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator has been available for over a decade and now is frequently prescribed for patients deemed at high arrhythmic risk in whom the underlying pathology is potentially reversible or who are awaiting an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is included in the new 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. The present review provides insight into the current technology and an overview of this approach.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Bridge or alternative to implantation?

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is effective to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients with heart disease known to be at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Nevertheless, this invasive and definitive therapy is not indicated in patients with potentially transient or reversible causes of sudden death, or in patients with temporary contra-indication for ICD placement. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is increasingly used for SCD prevention both in patients awaiting ICD implantation or with an estimated high risk of ventricular arrhythmia though to be transient. We conducted a review of current clinical uses and benefits of the WCD, and described its technical aspects, limitations and perspectives.

Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillators

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) has favorably impacted the prevention and treatment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) associated with ventricular arrhythmias. However, there are situations where an ICD cannot be immediately implanted, even though the patient is at high risk for SCD. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is a unique technology that can bridge this gap for patients. The WCD has been demonstrated to terminate ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation if worn and used correctly. With proper training, it is relatively easy to put on, maintain, and use. Most patients are compliant and are able to consistently wear the device. The WCD negates the infection risk or procedural complications associated with insertion and possible extraction of leads, as with an ICD. In terms of primary prevention of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, prospective, randomized studies evaluating the survival of patients utilizing the WCD will need to be performed before evidenced-based criteria for its use can be established. On the basis of current data, WCD use for those awaiting heart transplant, for those with ICD indications status post-ICD explant, and for high-risk SCD patients with possible reversible cardiomyopathy appears to be a reasonable approach on the basis of current data.

Digital monitoring and care: Virtual medicine

Remote digital health monitoring technologies can be synergistically organized to create a virtual medical system providing more continuous care centered on the patient rather than the bricks and mortar medical complex. Utilization of the digitalized patient health monitoring can facilitate diagnosis, treatment plans, physician-patient interaction, and accelerate the progress of medical research, education, and training. The field of cardiac electrophysiology has been an early adopter of this shift in care and serves as a paradigm applicable to all areas of medicine. The overall impact of this remote virtual care model on the quality of medical care and patient experience requires greater study, as well as vigilance as to the differences between technology and care in order to preserve the intangible and immeasurable factors that bring humanity to the art and science of medicine.

The Wearable Cardioverter/Defibrillator - Toy Or Tool?

After the success story of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems, prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains one of the main duties in cardiology. For patients with unkown or transient risk profile for SCD, a wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) has been established for temporary and effective prevention of sudden arrhythmic death. Several studies have shown safety and efficacy of the WCD, even though randomized studies proving a mortality benefit are still lacking. This review provides an overview of actual WCD data and usage, special indications and possible risks and complications. WCD use is effective and adequate for temporary prevention of SCD in chosen populations. In particular, it provides secured time for sophisticated risk stratification to identify patients at persistent risk for SCD. Nevertheless, prospective randomized trials seem mandatory to prove a prognostic relevance and the economic value of this device.