Comprehensive multicomponent cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients: a consensus document from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC; Secondary prevention and rehabilitation section) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Single- Versus Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States

Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single- versus dual-chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary-prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in-hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in-hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual-chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In-hospital complication rates in the dual-chamber ICD and single-chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively (P<0.001), driven by increased rates of pneumothorax/hemothorax (4.6% versus 3.4%; P<0.001) and lead dislodgement (3.6% versus 2.3%; P<0.001) in the dual-chamber ICD group. Multivariable analyses confirmed atrial lead addition as an independent predictor for "any complications" (odds ratio [OR], 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.2]), for pneumo/hemothorax (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.4]), and for lead dislodgement (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.6]). Conclusions Despite lack of evidence for clinical benefit, dual-chamber ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a majority of patients who do not have pacing indication. This practice is associated with increased risk of periprocedural complications. Avoidance of routine implantation of atrial leads will likely improve safety outcomes.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Treatment

The Korean Society of Heart Failure (KSHF) guidelines aim to provide physicians with evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with heart failure (HF). After the first introduction of the KSHF guidelines in 2016, newer therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction have since emerged. The current version has been updated based on international guidelines and research data on Korean patients with HF. Herein, we present Part II of these guidelines, which comprises treatment strategies to improve the outcomes of patients with HF.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Treatment

The Korean Society of Heart Failure (KSHF) guidelines aim to provide physicians with evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with heart failure (HF). After the first introduction of the KSHF guidelines in 2016, newer therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction have since emerged. The current version has been updated based on international guidelines and research data on Korean patients with HF. Herein, we present Part II of these guidelines, which comprises treatment strategies to improve the outcomes of patients with HF.

Clinical Determinants and Barriers to Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrollment of Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Single-Center Study in Portugal

Despite cardiac rehabilitation (CR) being a recommended treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), it is still underused. This study investigated the clinical determinants and barriers to enrollment in a CR program for HFrEF patients. We conducted a cohort study using the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS) to assess the reason for non-enrollment. Of 214 HFrEF patients, 65% had not been enrolled in CR. Patients not enrolled in CR programs were older (63 vs. 58 years; p < 0.01) and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (20% vs. 5%; p < 0.01). Patients enrolled in CR were more likely to be treated with sacubitril/valsartan (34% vs. 19%; p = 0.01), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (84% vs. 72%; p = 0.04), an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (41% vs. 20%; p < 0.01), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (21% vs. 10%; p = 0.03). Multivariate analysis revealed that age (adjusted OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01−1.07), higher education level (adjusted OR 3.31; 95% CI 1.63−6.70), stroke (adjusted OR 3.29; 95% CI 1.06−10.27), COPD (adjusted OR 4.82; 95% CI 1.53−15.16), and no ICD status (adjusted OR 2.68; 95% CI 1.36−5.26) were independently associated with CR non-enrollment. The main reasons for not being enrolled in CR were no medical referral (31%), concomitant medical problems (28%), patient refusal (11%), and geographical distance to the hospital (9%). Despite the relatively high proportion (35%) of HFrEF patients who underwent CR, the enrollment rate can be further improved. Innovative multi-level strategies addressing physicians’ awareness, patients’ comorbidities, and geographical issues should be pursued.

Safety and feasibility of a telemonitoring-guided exercise program in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation is an alternative clinic-based rehabilitation. A remote monitoring (RM) system attached to a cardiac rhythm device can collect physiological data and the device function. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of telerehabilitation supervised by an RM in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

A single group pre-post exercise program was implemented for 3 months in 18 CRT recipients. The exercise regimen consisted of walking a prescribed number of steps based on a 6-min walk distance (6MWD) achieved at baseline. The patients were asked to exercise 3 to 5 times per week for up to 30 min per session, wearing an accelerometer to document the number of steps taken. The safety was assessed by the heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause death. The feasibility was measured by the improvement in the quality of life (QOL) using the EuroQol 5 dimensions, and daily active time measured by the CRT, 6MWD, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

RESULTS

No patients had heart failure hospitalizations or died. No patients had any ventricular tachyarrhythmias. One patient needed to suspend the exercise due to signs of exacerbated heart failure by the RM. Compared to baseline, there were significant improvements in the QOL (-0.037, p < .05), active time (1.12%/day, p < .05), and 6MWD (11 m, p < .001), but not the BNP (-32.4 pg/ml, p = .07) or LVEF (0.28%, p = .55).

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of RM-guided walking exercise in patients with CRT significantly increased the QOL, active time, and exercise capacity without any adverse effects.