Impact of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator compliance on outcomes in the VEST trial: As-treated and per-protocol analyses

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.

False Alarms in Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillators-A Relevant Issue or an Insignificant Observation

Background: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) has emerged as a valuable tool used for temporary protection from sudden cardiac death. However, since the WCD uses surface electrodes to detect arrhythmias, it is susceptible to inappropriate detection. Although shock conversion rates for the WCD are reported to be high for detected events, its efficacy in clinical practice tends to be degraded by patient noncompliance. Reasons for this include wearer discomfort and frequent false alarms, which may interrupt sleep and generate anxiety. Up to now, data on the incidence of false alarms emitted by the WCD and their predictors are rare. Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess the relationship between both artifact sensing and episode misclassification burden and wearing compliance in patients with a WCD (ZOLL LifeVest™ 4000 system, ZOLL CMS GmbH, Cologne, Germany). Methods and Results: We conducted a single-center retrospective observational study, analyzing patients with a WCD prescribed at our institution. A total of 134 patients (mean age 51.7 ± 13.8 years, 79.1% male) were included. Arrhythmia recordings were analyzed and categorized as non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, artifact sensing or misclassified episodes. Indication for WCD prescription was both primary and secondary prophylaxis. A total of 3019 false WCD alarms were documented in 78 patients (average number of false alarms 38.7 ± 169.5 episodes per patient) over a mean WCD wearing time of 71.5 ± 70.9 days (daily WCD wearing time 20.2 ± 5.0 h). In a total of 78 patients (58.2% of the study population), either artifact sensing (76.9%), misclassified episodes (6.4%), or both (16.7%) occurred. Misclassified episodes included sinus tachycardias, atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation, premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and intermittent bundle branch block. A multiple linear regression identified loop diuretics (regression coefficient [B] -0.11; 95% CI -0.21-(-0.0001); p = 0.049), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) (B -0.11; 95% CI 0.22-(-0.01); p = 0.033), and a higher R-amplitude of the WCD baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) (B -0.17; 95% CI -0.27-(-0.07); p = 0.001) as independent predictors for a lower number of artifact episodes per day. In addition, atrial fibrillation (B 0.05; 95% CI 0.01-0.08; p = 0.010), and calcium antagonists (B 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.12; p = 0.012) were independent predictors for increased numbers of misclassified episodes per day, while beta-blockers seemed to reduce them (B -0.06; 95% CI -0.10-(-0.01); p = 0.013). Patients terminated 61.0% of all false alarms manually by pressing the response button on average 1.9 times per false alarm with overall 3.6 manual terminations per affected patient per month. Conclusions: In conclusion, false alarms from the ZOLL LifeVest™ system were frequent, with artifact sensing being the most common cause. Hence, the occurrence of false alarms represents a significant side effect of WCD therapy, and efforts should be made to minimize false alarms.

Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator as a Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure of Various Aetiologies-A Series of Ten Cases Within the BIA-VEST Registry

Background/Objectives: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a major global health concern and represents one of the most common causes of mortality due to cardiovascular diseases. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is an innovative, non-invasive medical device designed to provide continuous heart monitoring and immediate defibrillation in patients at risk for SCD. The study aimed to assess the efficacy of WCD usage in patients awaiting decision on therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Methods: We explored the clinical applications, benefits, and limitations of WCD usage within the BIA-VEST registry in Poland over the years 2021-2023. The study included 10 patients with a mean age of 49.1 ± 12.02 years. Results: All patients demonstrated good tolerance and compliance with the LifeVest WCD, wearing it for an average of 93.1 days, about 22.8 h per day (95.7% of the time). No interventions from LifeVests were recorded, and there were no effective, ineffective, or inadequate discharges. After the first follow-up echocardiography, five patients still required ICDs. Due to improved LVEF and overall condition in six out of ten patients undergoing WCD bridge therapy, ICD implantation was finally waived. Conclusions: The WCD acts as a bridge to therapy, such as ICD implantation or cardiac surgery, and may be particularly beneficial for patients with transient or evolving conditions, such as structural heart diseases and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

Clinical outcomes during and after wearable cardioverter defibrillator use in Japanese patients with heart failure: A single-center experience

Background

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated for a limited period in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Nonischemic heart failure (HF) is common among Japanese patients with HF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of fatal arrhythmias during WCD use and the clinical outcomes after WCD withdrawal in Japanese patients with HF.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 105 hospitalized HF patients who were discharged with a WCD. The main outcome was SCD/ventricular arrhythmias during WCD use and the other outcomes were implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), SCD/ventricular arrhythmias after WCD withdrawal, and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Results

Eighty-seven (83%) patients received a WCD for primary prevention of SCD, of whom 60 (69%) were new-onset HF patients with an LVEF ≤35%. The median daily wear time was 22.1 h. Two patients experienced sustained ventricular tachycardia and one patient experienced atrioventricular block with asystole while on WCD. After WCD withdrawal, 81 (77%) patients decided not to receive ICD implantation. The percentage of patients with an LVEF ≥35% increased from 20% at baseline to 70% at 1 year after discharge. During the median follow-up of 50 months, 78 (96%) of the 81 patients who did not have an ICD were free of SCD/ventricular arrhythmias.

Conclusions

The use of a WCD is useful for determining the appropriate indication for ICD implantation in Japanese patients with new-onset HF, a low LVEF, and a risk of SCD.

Wearable defibrillator to improve accuracy in selecting candidates to implantable defibrillator: A real-world experience

AIMS

The indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention relies mostly on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. The use of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) in the case of dynamic alterations of LVEF may help avoid an improper early ICD implant when a favourable evolution in the post-acute phase is observed and may help reduce costs.

METHODS

This parallel cohort retrospective study included patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) at high risk of arrhythmias recruited in the acute phase and divided into an early ICD cohort and a WCD cohort for primary prevention during the waiting period established by European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 41 consecutive patients were enrolled: 26 in the WCD group and 15 in the early ICD group. Age, LVEF at baseline, causes of HFrEF and drug therapy in the two cohorts were similar. During the waiting period after the inclusion, three patients (11.5%) in the WCD cohort and four (26.7%) in the early ICD cohort developed relevant ventricular arrhythmias (P = 0.22); none of them had subsequent LVEF recovery. At the end of the waiting period, 13 patients (50%) in the WCD group and 7 (46.7%) in the early ICD group experienced LVEF recovery (P = 0.84). The average cost per patient at the end of the waiting period was €23 934 in the early ICD cohort versus €19 167 in the WCD cohort (-19.9%). This cost savings from WCD use appears even higher when projected over a 10 year period (-41.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

WCD may represent a cost-effective strategy to more accurately select candidates for the primary prevention ICD implant among high-risk patients with HFrEF. ICD use provides effective protection from SCD and reduces costs compared with an extensive early ICD implant.

Prognostic value of ventricular arrhythmia in early post-infarction left ventricular dysfunction: the French nationwide WICD-MI study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are not recommended until left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been reassessed 40 to 90 days after an acute myocardial infarction. In the current therapeutic era, the prognosis of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occurring during this early post-infarction phase (i.e. within 3 months of hospital discharge) has not yet been specifically evaluated in post-myocardial infarction patients with impaired LVEF. Such was the aim of this retrospective study.

METHODS

Data analysis was based on a nationwide registry of 1032 consecutive patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after acute myocardial infarction who were implanted with an ICD after being prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) for a period of 3 months upon discharge from hospital after the index infarction.

RESULTS

ICDs were implanted either because a sustained VA occurred while on WCD (VA+/WCD, n = 72) or because LVEF remained ≤35% at the end of the early post-infarction phase (VA-/WCD, n = 960). The median follow-up was 30.9 months. Sustained VAs occurred within 1 year after ICD implantation in 22.2% and 3.5% of VA+/WCD and VA-/WCD patients, respectively (P < .0001). The adjusted multivariable analysis showed that sustained VAs while on WCD independently predicted recurrence of sustained VAs at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 6.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.73-12.81; P < .0001) and at the end of follow-up (adjusted HR 3.86; 95% CI 2.37-6.30; P < .0001) as well as 1-year mortality (adjusted HR 2.86; 95% CI 1.28-6.39; P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, sustained VA during the early post-infarction phase is predictive of recurrent sustained VAs and 1-year mortality.

Appropriate use of wearable defibrillators with multiparametric evaluation to avoid unnecessary defibrillator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCD) have emerged as a valuable tool in the management of patients at risk for life-threatening arrhythmias. These devices offer a non-invasive and temporary solution, providing continuous monitoring and the potential for prompt defibrillation when needed. In this study, we explore the use of WCD and evaluate arrhythmic events through comprehensive monitoring.

METHODS

From November 2022 to May 2024, we conducted an outpatient follow-up of 41 patients receiving WCD. Regular check-ups, remote monitoring and comprehensive echocardiography were performed to optimise a tailored therapy.

RESULTS

The average age of the patients was 59.2.4±16.5 years, with 78% being male. Among the cohort, 54% had hypertension, 41% were smokers and 66% had dyslipidaemia, while 27% were diabetic. WCD was assigned according to the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists position paper focussing on the appropriate use of WCD and European Society of Cardiology guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: 24 (58%) patients had a de novo diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, 11 (27%) patients had a recent acute coronary syndrome and ejection fraction <35%, 3 (7%) patients had a cardiac electronic device extraction and 3 (7%) patients had myocarditis with features of electrical instability. The average follow-up was 62±38 days according to specific aetiology, with a daily wearing time of 22.7±1.3 hours. No device interventions were recorded. At the end of the follow-up period, 15 patients still required an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Among these, 12 patients (29%) underwent ICD implantation. Two patients (5%) declined the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of WCD for patients at high risk of arrhythmias allowed to optimise therapy and limit the indications for ICD. Inappropriate implantation of ICD was avoided in 69% of patients who received WCD. The device showed a good safety profile, low incidence of device interventions and adequate patients' adherence to WCD use.

Impact of Wearable Technology on Heart Failure Management

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive condition that its management presents significant challenges in both clinical settings and patient self-care. Recent advances in wearable technology offer promising solutions to these challenges by enabling continuous monitoring, early detection of clinical deterioration, and personalized care. This review aims to critically evaluate the impact of wearable technology on HF management Materials and Methods: This narrative systematic review was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, to identify relevant studies published between 2010 and 2024. Studies on wearable devices for HF management and monitoring were included if they reported on clinical trials and provided data on integration into clinical workflows. Studies on other conditions or without original research data or Non-English papers were excluded.

RESULTS

Nine studies were evaluated in this study that were focusing on a variety of technologies ranging from consumer-grade fitness trackers to specialized bioimpedance sensors and wearable cardioverter-defibrillators. These studies demonstrate the potential of wearables to continuously monitor important health metrics, which can lead to early intervention and personalized care. However, there are still challenges to be addressed, including concerns about data accuracy, patient adherence, small sample sizes, and the incorporation of wearable data into clinical practice. While consumer devices are more accessible, their accuracy in a clinical setting is uncertain, while more advanced devices like the "Volum" monitor and BioZ sensors show promise but require further validation.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the growing importance of wearable technologies in HF management, actionable insights that can prevent disease progression. However, significant challenges remain, including the need for further validation, device optimization, and data standardization before routine clinical practice. Future advancements should focus on improving device accuracy, patient adherence, and data security, while ensuring equitable access to these technologies.

A Patch Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Patients at Risk of Sudden Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND

For many patients, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) risk is elevated temporarily. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) can monitor and treat SCA during these temporary periods. Traditional WCDs can be uncomfortable, require frequent maintenance, and cannot be used when showering, resulting in poor compliance and avoidable SCA deaths. The Jewel is a novel, water-resistant patch-wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (P-WCD) with a machine learning detection algorithm designed to improve compliance and protection against SCA.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to demonstrate the safety and clinical effectiveness of a novel P-WCD.

METHODS

The Jewel IDE Study, a prospective, single-arm study conducted at 30 U.S. sites, enrolled patients at SCA risk due to ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation who were not candidates for or refused an implantable defibrillator. The primary safety endpoint was <15% patients with clinically significant cutaneous adverse device effects and the primary effectiveness endpoint was <2 inappropriate shocks/100 patient-months. Secondary endpoints were ≥1 successful ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation conversion and wear time compliance of >14.1 h/d.

RESULTS

A total of 305 patients (mean age: 57.9 years; 30.2% female, 27.9% non-White) were enrolled, of which 290 had available device data. The clinically significant cutaneous adverse device effect rate was 2.30% (upper 1-sided 98% CI: 4.80); none were severe. No device-related deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The inappropriate shock rate was 0.36/100 patient-months (upper 1-sided 98% CI: 1.53). Of 11 shocks in 9 patients, 9 shocks were adjudicated to be appropriate. Eight of 9 shocks were successful with a single shock. Median wear time compliance was 23.5 (20.7-23.9) h/d.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel P-WCD is a safe and effective WCD with high patient compliance. There were no deaths due to noncompliance and a high number of successful conversions (Jewel IDE study [A Clinical Evaluation of the Jewel P-WCD in Subjects at High Risk for Sudden Cardiac Arrest]; NCT05201495).

First human safety and effectiveness study of defibrillation with a novel patch wearable cardioverter-defibrillator

AIMS

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) are indicated in patients at risk of sudden cardiac arrest who are not immediate candidates for implantable defibrillator therapy. Limitations of existing WCDs include poor compliance and high false alarm rates. The Jewel is a novel patch-WCD (P-WCD) that addresses these limitations with an adhesive-based design for near-continuous wear and a machine learning algorithm designed to minimize inappropriate detections. This was a first-in-human study of the Jewel P-WCD conducted in an electrophysiology (EP) lab to determine the safety and effectiveness of the device in terminating ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) with a single shock. The aim was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of terminating VT/VF with a single shock using the Jewel P-WCD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a first-in-human, prospective, single-arm, single-centre study in patients scheduled for an EP procedure in which VT/VF was expected to either spontaneously occur or be induced. The Jewel P-WCD was placed on consented patients; upon confirmation of VT/VF, a single shock (150 J) was delivered via the device. A group sequential design and Pocock alpha spending function was used to measure the observed proportion of successful VT/VF single-shock terminations. The endpoint was achieved if the lower confidence limit exceeded the performance goal of 62%, using a one-sided lower 97.4% exact confidence bound. Of 18 eligible subjects, 16 (88.9%, 97.4% confidence bound: 65.4%) were successfully defibrillated with a single shock, exceeding the primary endpoint performance goal with no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This first-in-human evaluation of the Jewel P-WCD demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of terminating VT/VF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05490459.

Cardiovascular Rehabilitation With a WCD-Data From the CR3 Study (Cardiac Rehab Retrospective Review)

PURPOSE

Patients at risk for sudden cardiac death may temporarily need a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD). Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has a class I recommendation in patients with cardiac disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of undergoing CR with a WCD.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with a WCD who completed a CR in Austria (2010-2020).

RESULTS

Patients (n = 55, 60 ± 11 yr, 16% female) with a median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 36 (30, 41)% at the start of CR showed a daily WCD wearing duration of 23.4 (22, 24) hr. There were 2848 (8 [1, 26]/patient) automatic alarms and 340 (3 [1, 7]/patient) manual alarms generated. No shocks were delivered by the WCD during the CR period. One patient had recurrent hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardias that were controlled with antiarrhythmic drugs.No severe WCD-associated adverse events occurred during the CR stay of a median 28 (28, 28) d. The fabric garment and the device setting needed to be adjusted in two patients to diminish inappropriate automatic alarms. Left ventricular ejection fraction after CR increased significantly to 42 (30, 44)% ( P < .001). Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy was stopped due to LVEF restitution in 53% of patients. In 36% of patients an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted, 6% had LVEF improvement after coronary revascularization, one patient received a heart transplantation (2%), two patients discontinued WCD treatment at their own request (4%).

CONCLUSION

Completing CR is feasible and safe for WCD patients and may contribute positively to the restitution of cardiac function.

[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.

A novel artificial intelligence based algorithm to reduce wearable cardioverter-defibrillator alarms

BACKGROUND

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important tool in mitigating sudden cardiac death (SCD). The WCD provides patient alarms for detected arrhythmias or electrical noise/artifact. Some patients experience frequent alarms for artifact. We sought to evaluate the effects of a novel artificial intelligence algorithm to reduce alarms related to electrical noise or artifact (advanced arrhythmia discrimination algorithm, AArD).

METHODS

A retrospective review of a large commercial database of prescribed WCD. Patients prescribed the WCD during the years 2017 (discrimination algorithm, DA group) or during 2019 (advanced arrhythmia discrimination algorithm, AArD) were analyzed. A total of 96,000 patients were sampled, 48,000 in the control group (using standard direct algorithm, DA) and compared to 48,000 in the intervention AArD (4000 per group per month) for 12 months. The AArD further discriminates ECG signals based on a machine-learning algorithm utilizing intensity and frequency beyond the standard DA. Outcomes regarding alarms, arrhythmias, and safety were analyzed.

RESULTS

The AArD algorithm was associated with a significant decrease in frequency of alarms over the course of WCD use; 54% of patients in the AARD versus 27% of DA had 0 alarms (P < .001). In the entire cohort, there was a 56% relative reduction in alarms with the use of AArD. Appropriate arrhythmia treatment time was not significantly different between the groups (44 s DA vs 45 s AArD [p = ns]).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel artificial intelligence algorithm reduces alarms without delaying appropriate therapy for VT/VF. These changes may improve compliance and quality of life in patients with a WCD.

The Lancet Commission to reduce the global burden of sudden cardiac death: a call for multidisciplinary action

Despite major advancements in cardiovascular medicine, sudden cardiac death (SCD) continues to be an enormous medical and societal challenge, claiming millions of lives every year. Efforts to prevent SCD are hampered by imperfect risk prediction and inadequate solutions to specifically address arrhythmogenesis. Although resuscitation strategies have witnessed substantial evolution, there is a need to strengthen the organisation of community interventions and emergency medical systems across varied locations and health-care structures. With all the technological and medical advances of the 21st century, the fact that survival from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) remains lower than 10% in most parts of the world is unacceptable. Recognising this urgent need, the Lancet Commission on SCD was constituted, bringing together 30 international experts in varied disciplines. Consistent progress in tackling SCD will require a completely revamped approach to SCD prevention, with wide-sweeping policy changes that will empower the development of both governmental and community-based programmes to maximise survival from SCA, and to comprehensively attend to survivors and decedents' families after the event. International collaborative efforts that maximally leverage and connect the expertise of various research organisations will need to be prioritised to properly address identified gaps. The Commission places substantial emphasis on the need to develop a multidisciplinary strategy that encompasses all aspects of SCD prevention and treatment. The Commission provides a critical assessment of the current scientific efforts in the field, and puts forth key recommendations to challenge, activate, and intensify efforts by both the scientific and global community with new directions, research, and innovation to reduce the burden of SCD worldwide.

Prevention of Early Sudden Cardiac Death after Myocardial Infarction Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator-Results from a Real-World Cohort

BACKGROUND

After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are at risk of sudden cardiac death. The VEST trial failed to show a reduction in arrhythmic mortality in AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed with a WCD, having a lower-than-expected WCD wearing compliance.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to investigate on outcomes of patients in a real-world Austrian cohort with good compliance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all eligible Austrian WCD patients according to the VEST trial inclusion and exclusion criteria between 2010 and 2020 was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 105 Austrian patients (64 ± 11 years, 12% female; LVEF 28 ± 6%) received a WCD for a median of 69 (1; 277) days after AMI (wearing duration 23.5 (0; 24) hours/day). Within the first 90 days, 4/105 (3.8%) patients received 9 appropriate shocks (2 (1; 5) shocks). No inappropriate shocks were delivered, and 3/105 (2.9%) patients died during follow-up. Arrhythmic mortality (1.9% Austria vs. 1.6% VEST, p = 0.52), as well as all-cause mortality (2.9% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.42) was comparable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The WCD is a safe treatment option in a highly selected cohort of patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after AMI. However, despite excellent WCD wearing duration in our cohort, the arrhythmic mortality rate was not significantly different.

Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shortens the Lengths of Stay in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Myocardial Infarction: A Single-Centre Real-World Experience

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) has been proven to be effective in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients soon after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. The aim of this study was to assess whether a WCD may shorten the length of an initial hospital stay (total length, days in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the acute cardiac care unit (ACCU)) among these patients. This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study of patients referred for the management of SCD risk post-AMI and LVEF ≤35%, in a tertiary care hospital. The clinical characteristics and length of index hospitalization of the group of patients discharged, with or without WCD, were compared. A propensity score analysis was performed, then weighted regression models were conducted. A total of 101 patients in the WCD group and 29 in the control group were enrolled in the analysis. In the weighted regression models, WCD significantly reduced the days spent in ACCU (p < 0.001). WCD patients had significantly fewer days spent in ACCU (5.5 ± 2.6 vs. 8.4 ± 12.8 days, p < 0.001) and shorter hospitalizations (10.2 ± 5.7 vs. 13.4 ± 17.6 days, p = 0.005), compared with the control group. It was concluded that the WCD appears to reduce the total length of hospitalization and lengths of stay in ACCU for patients post-AMI and with left ventricular dysfunction.

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.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk: An updated systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

Objectives

To synthesise the available evidence of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy as an add-on measure to optimal medical therapy (OMT) or as a replacement of hospital stay.

Methods

An update systematic review (SR) of comparative effectiveness and safety of WCD therapy was conducted. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective comparative studies and prospective uncontrolled studies with at least 100 patients. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted.

Results

One RCT (n = 2348) and further eleven observational studies (n = 5345) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. In the only available RCT, the use of the WCD was not statistically associated with a clinical benefit on arrhythmic mortality in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with an ejection fraction of ≤35%. The compliance with WCD therapy was low in the RCT and high in observational studies, with ten observational studies reporting on a daily wear time between 20 and 23.5 h. The range of percentage of patients receiving at least one appropriate shock was 1-4.8% and the rate of first shock success was reported to be 100% in three studies. Serious adverse events (SAEs) such as inappropriate shocks occurred rarely, with between 0% and 2% of patients being inappropriately shocked within ten observational studies. In one of the observational studies, two patients (2%) were allergic to nickel developing skin rash and false alarms occurred in 58 patients (57%) in this study. Another registry study (n = 448) reported milder AEs, such as dermatitis and pressure marks, occurring in 0.9% and 0.2% of enrolled patients, respectively.

Conclusion

The only available RCT failed to show superiority of add-on use of WCD in post MI patients. Observational evidence shows that the compliance with WCD is good, but the evidence is afflicted with selection bias and the inclusion of diverse mixed patient populations diluting the ability to draw indication-specific conclusions on the utility of the device. More comparative data is needed to justify continuing or expanding use of WCD therapy.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator after cardiac surgery: Analysis of real-life data from patients at transient risk of sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Especially in the first 3 months after cardiac surgery, patients are at transient risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). To close the gap between hospital discharge and the final implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) decision, guidelines recommend temporarily using a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) to protect these patients from SCD. We investigated real-life data on the safety, effectiveness, and compliance of the WCD in this population.

METHODS

Data for analysis were collected via the Zoll Patient Management Network (ZPM) from patients who underwent cardiac surgery and who were discharged with a WCD between 2018 and 2021 at the Cardiac Surgery Center of the University of Erlangen in Germany.

RESULTS

The majority of the 55 patients were male (90.9%) and underwent a coronary artery bypass graft (80.0%). The number of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35% increased from 9.1% at the beginning of WCD use to 58.2% at the end of WCD use. Six ventricular tachycardia (VT) episodes occurred in four patients. The WCD appropriately defibrillated two patients with VT episodes. There were no inadequate shocks and no fatalities during the observation time. WCD wearing compliance was high, with a median wear time of 23.3 h/day.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis in a single cardiac surgery center confirms prior data on the safety and effectiveness of the WCD in patients in post-surgery care in a real-life setting. The WCD successfully protected patients from SCD during life-threatening VT episodes. WCD wearing compliance was high.

Risk Factors for Arrhythmic Death, Overall Mortality, and Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias Requiring Shock After Myocardial Infarction

The VEST (Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial) showed a trend toward decreased sudden death and lower overall mortality with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in the postmyocardial infarction (post-MI) period. However, it is unclear which patients should receive WCD therapy. We aimed to identify the risk factors for arrhythmic death, all-cause mortality, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring appropriate shock to identify patients most likely to benefit from a WCD. The VEST trial included patients with acute MI with ejection fraction ≤35%. Using logistic regression, 7 risk factors were evaluated for association with arrhythmic death, all-cause mortality, and appropriate shock. Among 2,302 participants, 44 had arrhythmic death (1.9%) and 86 died of any cause (3.7%). Among 1,524 participants randomized to WCD, 20 experienced appropriate shock (1.3%) over 90 days. In the multivariable analyses, lower systolic blood pressure (SBP; odds ratio [OR] 1.64 per 10 mm Hg) and higher heart rate at discharge (OR 1.19 per 10 beats/min) were associated with arrhythmic death. Lower SBP (OR 1.37) and higher heart rate (OR 1.10) were associated with all-cause mortality. Higher heart rate (OR 1.20) was associated with appropriate shock. Patients with both SBP ≤100 and heart rate ≥100 were at increased odds of arrhythmic death (OR 4.82), all-cause mortality (OR 3.10), and appropriate shock (OR 6.13). In patients with acute MI and reduced ejection fraction, lower SBP and higher heart rate at discharge were strongly associated with arrhythmic death and all-cause mortality. In conclusion, these risk factors identify a select group at high risk of adverse events in a setting where WCD therapy is reasonable.

Compliance challenges in a longitudinal COVID-19 cohort using wearables for continuous monitoring

BACKGROUND

Wearables to Investigate the Long Term Cardiovascular and Behavioral Impacts of COVID-19 (WEAICOR) study is a prospective observational study using continuous monitoring to detect and analyze biometrics. Compliance to wearables was a major challenge when conducting the study and was crucial for the results.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate patients' compliance to wearable wristbands and determinants of compliance in a prospective COVID-19 cohort.

METHODS

Biostrap wearable device was used to monitor participants' biometric data. Compliance was calculated by dividing the total number of days in which transmissions were sent by the total number of days in the study. Univariate correlation was performed between compliance, days in the study and age, BMI, sex, symptom severity, and number of complications/comorbidites as independent variables. Also, multivariate linear regression was then performed with days in the study as a dependent variable to assess the power of different parameters in determining days in the study.

RESULTS

On hundred twenty-two patients were included in the study. Patients were on average 43 years old and 32% were female. Age was found to be correlated with compliance (r=0.23, P=0.01). In addition, age (r=0.30, P=0.001), BMI (r=0.19, P=0.03) and severity of symptoms (r=0.19, P=0.03) were found to be correlated with days spent in the study. On multivariate analysis with days spent in the study as a dependent variable, only increased age was a significant determinant of compliance with wearables (adjusted R2 = 0.1, β = 1.6, P= 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance is a major obstacle in remote monitoring studies and the reasons for a lack thereof are multifactorial. Patient factors such as age, in addition to environmental factors can affect compliance to wearables.

Sudden cardiac death while waiting: do we need the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator?

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most frequent cause of cardiovascular death in industrialized nations. Patients with cardiomyopathy are at increased risk for SCD and may benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The risk of SCD is highest in the first months after myocardial infarction or first diagnosis of severe non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. On the other hand, left ventricular function may improve in a subset of patients to such an extent that an ICD might no longer be needed. To offer protection from a transient risk of SCD, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is available. Results of the first randomized clinical trial investigating the role of the WCD after myocardial infarction were recently published. This review is intended to provide insight into data from the VEST trial, and to put these into perspective with studies and clinical experience. As a non-invasive, temporary therapy, the WCD may offer advantages over early ICD implantation. However, recent data demonstrate that patient compliance and education play a crucial role in this new concept of preventing SCD.

Sex differences and adherence of patients treated with wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: insights from an international multicenter register

AIMS

Treatment with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) may protect against sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a bridging therapy until a cardioverter-defibrillator may be implanted. We analyzed in a multicenter setting a consecutive patient cohort wearing WCD to explore sex differences.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed 708 consecutive patients, 579 (81.8%) from whom were males and 129 (18.2%) females (age, 60.5±14 vs. 61.6±17 years old; p=0.44). While the rate of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) as a cause of prescription of WCD was significantly higher in males as compared to females (42.7% vs. 26.4%; p=0.001), females received it more frequently due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (55.8% vs. 42.7%); p=0.009). The wear time of WCD was equivalent in both groups (21.1±4.3 hours/days in males vs. 21.5±4.4 hours/days in females; p=0.27; and 62.6±44.3 days in males vs. 56.5±39 days in females; p=0.15). Mortality was comparable in both groups at 2-year-follow-up (6.8% in males vs. 9.7% in females; p=0.55). Appropriate WCD shocks and the incidence of ICD implantations were similar in both groups (2.4% in males vs. 3.9% in females; p=0.07) (35.1% in males vs. 31.8% in females; p=0.37), respectively. In age tertile analysis, compliance was observed more in 73-91 years old group as compared to 14-51 years old group (87.8% vs. 68.3%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compliance for wearing WCD was excellent regardless of sex. Furthermore, mortality and the incidence of ICD implantations were comparable in both sexes. Appropriate WCD shocks were similar in both sexes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Telemonitoring Potential of Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillators during the Follow-Up of Patients with Heart Failure

Background: Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) are a well-established tool to bridge the recovery time of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) until the implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), as recommended by the current guidelines. Besides their function to detect and treat malignant arrhythmias, WCDs may be used as a telemonitoring system. In this study, we sought to illustrate and discuss the telemonitoring potential of WCDs and to analyze physical activity in specific patient cohorts. Methods and Results: We retrospectively included 140 patients with reduced LVEF who were prescribed WCDs in our clinic. We analyzed the patients’ physical activity (n = 105 with a WCD compliance above 21 h/day), body position and resting position. We found a reduced physical activity in women and in patients over the age of 65 compared to younger patients. Furthermore, the patients who were overweight or obese showed significantly reduced physical activity compared to the patients with a normal weight (6365 ± 3572 vs. 4972 ± 2476 vs. 7045 ± 3521, p = 0.02). Conclusion: WCDs may be used as a telemonitoring and intervention tool in patients with reduced LVEF. Specific patient groups may benefit from guidance from their treating physician regarding physical activity.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator multicentre experience in a large cardiac surgery cohort at transient risk of sudden cardiac death

OBJECTIVES

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe, effective solution, protecting patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. We specifically investigated WCD use in cardiac surgery patients since data for this patient group are rare.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis in 10 German cardiac surgery centres was performed. Cardiac surgery patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% or after implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) explantation who received WCD between 2010 and 2020 were assessed using LifeVest Network data.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 patients with a median age of 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) 57-73] were enrolled; 87% were male. Clinical indications included coronary artery bypass grafting (43%), valve surgery (16%), combined coronary artery bypass graft/valve surgery (15%), ICD explantation (24%) and miscellaneous (2%). The median wear time of WCD was 23.4 h/day (IQR 21.7-23.8). A total of 106 patients (9.1%) exhibited ventricular tachycardia. A total of 93.2% of episodes occurred within the first 3 months. Eighteen patients (1.5%) received 26 adequate shocks. The inadequate shock rate was low (8 patients, 0.7%). LVEF improved from a median of 28% (IQR 22-32%) before WCD prescription to 35% (IQR 28-42%) during follow-up. Excluding ICD explant patients, 37% of patients received an ICD.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of sudden cardiac death is substantial within the first 3 months after cardiac surgery. Patients were protected effectively by WCD. Due to significant LVEF improvement, the majority did not require ICD implantation after WCD use. Compliance was high despite sternotomy. This multicentre experience confirms existing data regarding effectiveness, safety and compliance. Therefore, WCD should be considered in cardiac surgery patients with severely reduced LVEF.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Primary and Secondary Prevention of SCD-What We Still Don't Know

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) all around the globe. In almost 40 years of technological advances and multiple clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in the implantation rate. The purpose of this review is to highlight the grey areas related to actual ICD recommendations, focusing specifically on the primary prevention of SCD. We will discuss the still-existing controversies strongly reflected in the differences between the international guidelines regarding ICD indication class in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and also address the question of early implantation after myocardial infarction in the absence of clear protocols for patients at high risk of life-threatening arrhythmias. Correlating the insufficient data in the literature for 40-day waiting times with the increased risk of SCD in the first month after myocardial infarction, we review the pros and cons of early ICD implantation.

The value of wearable cardioverter defibrillator in adult patients with recent myocardial infarction: Economic and clinical implications from a health technology assessment perspective

AIMS

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) causes high mortality and substantial societal burdens for healthcare systems (HSs). The risk of SCD is significantly increased in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction (MI). Current guidelines recommend re-evaluation of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation 40 days post-MI, earliest. Medical therapy alone does not provide sufficient protection against SCD, especially in the first month post-MI, and needs time. Consequently, there is a gap in care of high-risk patients upon hospital discharge. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is a proven safe, effective therapy, which temporarily protects from SCD. Little information on WCD cost-effectiveness exists. We conducted this research to demonstrate the medical need of the device in the post-MI setting defining WCD cost-effectiveness.

METHODS & RESULTS

Based on a randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Italian and international data, we developed a Markov-model comparing costs, patient survival, and quality-of-life, and calculated the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of a WCD vs. current standard of care in post-MI patients. The rather conservative base case analysis - based on the RCT intention-to-treat results - produced an ICER of €47,709 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained, which is far lower than the accepted threshold of €60,000 in the Italian National HS. The ICER per Life Year (LY) gained was €38,276.

CONCLUSION

WCD utilization in post-MI patients is clinically beneficial and cost-effective. While improving guideline directed patient care, the WCD can also contribute to a more efficient use of resources in the Italian HS, and potentially other HSs as well.

Optimal Timing of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

Prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) early after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a challenge, without clear recommendations in spite of the high incidence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, as implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement is not indicated in the first 40 days after an AMI; this timing is aleatory and it is owed to fact that the two pivotal studies for evaluation of ICDs in primary prevention, MADIT and MADIT II, excluded the patients within three, respectively four weeks after AMI.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, single-center study that included 77 patients with AMI. All patients were monitored by continuous ECG in the first week after the event. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at discharge and 40 days after the event. Patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less as assessed by 2D echocardiography 40 days after the MI, which received an ICD for the primary prevention of SCD, were included in the study. The subjects were followed for a median of 38 months, by means of device interrogation and echocardiography.

Results

We divided our patients into two groups: in the first group, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) under 30% after MI, all patients remained in the reduced ejection fraction heart failure category, with an increase from an initial mean of 18.93 ± 4.99% to a mean of 22.18 ± 4.53% after a period of 40 days; we obtained a positive and statistically significant correlation (p < 0.001 and r - 0.547), and all patients presented indication of ICD implant 40 day after MI. In the second group with LVEF between 30% and 35% after MI, the mean LVEF increased from an initial mean of 31.73 ± 1.33% to a mean of 32.33 ± 1.49% after a period of 40 days. A statistically significant correlation (p - 0.02 and r - 0.78) was obtained, although 3 patients presented a LVEF over 35% at 40 days post-MI. Most of the ICD therapies (14.54%) appeared in patients with LVEF < 30% and these patients also presented a higher percentage of NSVT at initial ECG monitoring (54% vs. 50%) and NSVT at ICD interrogation (80% vs. 66.7%); statistical significance was not reached - p > 0.05. The majority of the ICD therapies (11.9% from 13.4%) appeared in patients with NSVT at initial ECG monitoring; also, these presented an increased number of NSVT at ICD interrogation (77.6% vs. 6%) when compared to patients without VT detection at the initial ECG monitoring. Still, statistical significance was not reached - p > 0.15.

Conclusions

The patients could benefit from ICD implant earlier than stated in the actual guidelines, since there are insufficient data in the literature for the waiting time of 40 days. Correlated with the increased risk of SCD in the first months post myocardial infarction, the present study proves the benefit of early ICD implantation considering that all our patients with a low ejection fraction immediately after infarction remained in the same category and the great majority (96.1%) required the implantation of an ICD after 40 days. Thus, we could avoid exposing our patients at risk of SCD for an unnecessary prolonged period, and choose early ICD implantation.

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.

Real life experience with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in an international multicenter Registry

Patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) may benefit from wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) by avoiding immediate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Different factors play an important role including patient selection, compliance and optimal drug treatment. We aimed to present real world data from 4 centers from Germany and Switzerland. Between 04/2012 and 03/2019, 708 patients were included in this registry. Patients were followed up over a mean time of 28 ± 35.5 months. Outcome data including gender differences and different etiologies of cardiomyopathy were analyzed. Out of 708 patients (81.8% males, mean age 61.0 ± 14.6), 44.6% of patients had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 39.8% ischemic cardiomyopathy, 7.9% myocarditis, 5.4% prior need for ICD explantation and 2.1% channelopathy. The mean wear time of WCD was 21.2 ± 4.3 h per day. In 46% of patients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was > 35% during follow-up. The younger the patient was, the higher the LVEF and the lower the wear hours per day were. The total shock rate during follow-up was 2.7%. Whereas an appropriate WCD shock was documented in 16 patients (2.2%), 3 patients received an inappropriate ICD shock (0.5%). During follow-up, implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device was carried out in 34.5% of patients. When comparing German patients (n = 516) to Swiss patients (n = 192), Swiss patients presented with longer wear days (70.72 ± 49.47 days versus 58.06 ± 40.45 days; p = 0.001) and a higher ICD implantation rate compared to German patients (48.4% versus 29.3%; p = 0.001), although LVEF at follow-up was similar between both groups. Young age is a negative independent predictor for the compliance in this large registry. The most common indication for WCD was non-ischemic cardiomyopathy followed by ischemic cardiomyopathy. The compliance rate was generally high with a decrease of wear hours per day at younger age. Slight differences were found between Swiss and German patients, which might be related to differences in mentality for ICD implantation.

A Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator with a Low False Alarm Rate

BACKGROUND

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to ECG noise and wear discomfort.

OBJECTIVE

To test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort.

METHODS

130 patients with LVEF ≤ 40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD VT/VF episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day).

RESULTS

Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only 3 false positive shock alarm markers were recorded; 1 false positive shock alarm every 1,333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% CI: 0.00015-0.00361; p < 0.001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥ 170 bpm for ≥ 20 seconds) were missed by the WCD during 3,501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (IQR 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 hours (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%).

CONCLUSION

The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Building a Precision Medicine Delivery Platform for Clinics: The University of California, San Francisco, BRIDGE Experience

Despite an ever-expanding number of analytics with the potential to impact clinical care, the field currently lacks point-of-care technological tools that allow clinicians to efficiently select disease-relevant data about their patients, algorithmically derive clinical indices (eg, risk scores), and view these data in straightforward graphical formats to inform real-time clinical decisions. Thus far, solutions to this problem have relied on either bottom-up approaches that are limited to a single clinic or generic top-down approaches that do not address clinical users’ specific setting-relevant or disease-relevant needs. As a road map for developing similar platforms, we describe our experience with building a custom but institution-wide platform that enables economies of time, cost, and expertise. The BRIDGE platform was designed to be modular and scalable and was customized to data types relevant to given clinical contexts within a major university medical center. The development process occurred by using a series of human-centered design phases with extensive, consistent stakeholder input. This institution-wide approach yielded a unified, carefully regulated, cross-specialty clinical research platform that can be launched during a patient’s electronic health record encounter. The platform pulls clinical data from the electronic health record (Epic; Epic Systems) as well as other clinical and research sources in real time; analyzes the combined data to derive clinical indices; and displays them in simple, clinician-designed visual formats specific to each disorder and clinic. By integrating an application into the clinical workflow and allowing clinicians to access data sources that would otherwise be cumbersome to assemble, view, and manipulate, institution-wide platforms represent an alternative approach to achieving the vision of true personalized medicine.

Experience with a Wearable Cardioverter-defibrillator in 436 Patients

The aim of the present study was to review the safety and efficiency of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) under current guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). We retrospectively analyzed 436 consecutive WCD patients seen in the years 2014–2020. Detected automatic arrhythmia alarm (AA) episodes were validated and classified as correct or incorrect. The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated. GDMT was optimized in our outpatient clinic to maximal tolerated doses. During a total wear time (WT) of 23,527 days, 3,135 AAs were transmitted from 206 of 436 (47.2%) patients. Visual analysis revealed correct diagnoses of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 38 AAs from 6 patients (total PPV, 1.21%; PPV in VT patients, 41%); the remaining AAs were artifacts. No appropriate or inappropriate shocks and fatalities were recorded. LVEF significantly improved (P < .001) during the WT from 25% (range, 20%–30%) to 40% (range, 34%–46%). Defibrillators were implanted in 109 patients (27%). The PPV for VT of the WCD was very low. There were fewer instances of true VT than previously reported, and no shocks (appropriate or inappropriate) were delivered. The majority of patients greatly improved with GDMT, and device implantation rates were lower than previously reported. Improvements in arrhythmia detection algorithms are warranted. Based on our results, WCDs are rarely needed for lifesaving shocks under optimal GDMT.

Management of ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure: Current perspectives

Congestive heart failure (HF) is a progressive affliction defined as the inability of the heart to sufficiently maintain blood flow. Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common in patients with HF, and conversely, advanced HF promotes the risk of VAs. Management of VA in HF requires a systematic, multimodality approach that comprises optimization of medical therapy and use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and/or device combined with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Catheter ablation is one of the most important strategies with the potential to abolish or decrease the number of recurrences of VA in this population. It can be a curative strategy in arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy and may even save lives in cases of an electrical storm. Additionally, modulation of the autonomic nervous system and stereotactic radiotherapy have been introduced as novel methods to control refractory VAs. In patients with end-stage HF and refractory VAs, an institution of the mechanical circulatory support device and cardiac transplant may be considered. This review aims to provide an overview of current evidence regarding management strategies of VAs in HF with an emphasis on interventional treatment.

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.

When is a wearable defibrillator indicated?

INTRODUCTION

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is a novel tool that may be of interest in situations with atransient risk of sudden cardiac death. It offers a temporary and easy to remove protection against malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In this review, the authors describe evidence in literature and different international guidelines and consensus.

AREAS COVERED

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and Google Scholar for relevant studies and comments.

EXPERT OPINION

If a WCD is indicated, the observance must be as perfect as possible. Thus, patients need proper education in wearing the WCD.The temporary use of a WCD is reasonable in patients with a high risk for SCD, even with a low level of evidence with only one randomized clinical trial (VEST), as its disadvantages are limited to a transitory impairment in quality of life and a low risk of inappropriate shock.Indications are now well accepted: ischemic cardiomyopathy with LVEF below 35% before reassessment, recent onset of NICM or presumed myocarditis with LVEF ≤35% before reassessment, after ICD explant until reimplantation (e.g. infection), and bridge to transplant.Future guidelines on WCD in the prevention of SCD may be warranted to harmonize clinical practice especially in debated indications..

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

AIM

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is used for temporary protection from sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction before considering an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). However, the prognostic significance of the WCD remains controversial due to conflicting evidence. The aim of the present study was to evaluate prognosis of patients receiving life-saving WCD shocks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients receiving a WCD at Hannover Medical School for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction between 2012 and 2017 were included. Data were acquired at baseline, at 3 months and at last available follow-up (FU). Three hundred and fifty-three patients were included (69% male; age 56 ± 15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25 ± 8%). FU after the WCD was 2.8 ± 1.5 years with a maximum of 6.8 years. Daily WCD wear time was 22 ± 4 h. Fourteen patients (4%) received appropriate WCD shocks. Two patients (0.6%) died during the WCD period. Thirty patients (9%) died during extended FU. Mean estimated survival after the WCD was similar between patients with and without WCD shocks. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription did not experience SCD during FU.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with WCD shocks showed a favourable survival. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription had no SCD during FU. These findings support the practice of careful risk stratification before considering an ICD and the use of the WCD for temporary protection from SCD.

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Used as a Telemonitoring System in a Real-Life Heart Failure Unit Setting

BACKGROUND

In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are at risk of sudden cardiac death, a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is recommended as a bridge to the recovery of LVEF or as a bridge to the implantation of a device. In addition to its function to detect and treat malignant arrhythmia, WCD can be used via an online platform as a telemonitoring system to supervise patients' physical activity, compliance, and heart rate.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 173 patients with regard to compliance and heart rate after discharge.

RESULTS

Mean WCD wearing time was 59.75 ± 35.6 days; the daily wearing time was 21.19 ± 4.65 h. We found significant differences concerning the patients' compliance. Men showed less compliance than women, and younger patients showed less compliance than patients who were older. Furthermore, we analyzed the heart rate from discharge until the end of WCD prescription and found a significant decrease from discharge to 4, 8, or 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

WCD can be used as a telemonitoring system to help the involved heart failure unit or physicians attend to and adjust the medical therapy. Furthermore, specific patient groups should be educated more intensively with respect to compliance.

Increased Quality of Life Among Newly Diagnosed Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Months After Initiation of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator Prescription

BACKGROUND

The patient experience of heart failure involves a multi-impact symptom response with functional limitations, psychological changes, and significant treatment burden.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the change in patient-reported outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) prescribed a wearable cardioverter defibrillator.

METHODS

Adults hospitalized for new-onset heart failure, due to ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and prescribed a wearable cardioverter defibrillator within 10 days post discharge were approached for inclusion. Participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3 time points: baseline, day 90, and day 180.

RESULTS

A total of 210 patients (26% female) were included. All Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire subscales (physical limitation, symptom frequency, quality of life, and social limitation) showed improvement from baseline to day 90 (all Ps < .001). Only quality of life continued to improve from day 90 to day 180 (P < .001). By day 90, nearly 70% of patients showed an improvement in quality of life (67.9%, n = 91), and by day 180, more than 80% (82.8%, n = 111) reported a net improvement. Five patients (3.7%) reported a net decrease, and 18 patients (13.4%) had no net change in quality of life during the 180-day period.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported quality of life improved significantly among patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF and prescribed a wearable cardioverter defibrillator. These results suggest that pursuing guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF, while being protected by the wearable cardioverter defibrillator, is likely to provide symptom relief and improve quality of life.

Non-traditional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator configurations and insertion techniques: a review of contemporary options

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the treatment of acquired or inherited cardiac diseases associated with a high risk of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Contemporary ICD devices offer reliable arrhythmia detection and discrimination algorithms and deliver highly efficient tachytherapies. Percutaneously inserted transvenous defibrillator coils with pectoral generator placement are the first-line approach in the majority of adults due to their extensively documented clinical benefit and efficiency with comparably low periprocedural implantation risks as well as the option of providing pain-free tachycardia treatment via anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), concomitant bradycardiaprotection, and incorporation in a cardiac resynchronization therapy if indicated. Yet, expanding ICD indications particularly among younger and more complex patient groups as well as the increasingly evident long-term consequences and complications associated with intravascular lead placements promoted the development of alternative ICD configurations. Most established in daily clinical practice is the subcutaneous ICD but other innovative extravascular approaches like epicardial, pericardial, extra-pleural, and most recently substernal defibrillator coil placements have been introduced as well to overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices and allow for individualized treatment strategies tailored to the patients characteristics and needs. The review aims to provide practical solutions for common complications encountered with transvenous ICD systems including restricted venous access, high defibrillation/fibrillation thresholds (DFTs), and recurrent device infections. We summarize the contemporary options for non-traditional extravascular ICD configurations outlining indications, advantages, and disadvantages.

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.

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a transient risk of sudden cardiac death: the WEARIT-France cohort study

Aims 

We aimed to provide contemporary real-world data on wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) use, not only in terms of effectiveness and safety but also compliance and acceptability.

Methods and results 

Across 88 French centres, the WEARIT-France study enrolled retrospectively patients who used the WCD between May 2014 and December 2016, and prospectively all patients equipped for WCD therapy between January 2017 and March 2018. All patients received systematic education session through a standardized programme across France at the time of initiation of WCD therapy and were systematically enrolled in the LifeVest Network remote services. Overall, 1157 patients were included (mean age 60 ± 12 years, 16% women; 46% prospectively): 82.1% with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 10.3% after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator explant, and 7.6% before heart transplantation. Median WCD usage period was 62 (37–97) days. Median daily wear time of WCD was 23.4 (22.2–23.8) h. In multivariate analysis, younger age was associated with lower compliance [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–0.99, P < 0.01]. A total of 18 participants (1.6%) received at least one appropriate shock, giving an incidence of appropriate therapy of 7.2 per 100 patient-years. Patient-response button allowed the shock to be aborted in 35.7% of well-tolerated sustained ventricular arrhythmias and in 95.4% of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia detection, finally resulting in an inappropriate therapy in eight patients (0.7%).

Conclusion

Our real-life findings reinforce previous studies on the efficacy and safety of the WCD in the setting of transient high-risk group in selected patients. Moreover, they emphasize the fact that when prescribed appropriately, in concert with adequate patient education and dedicated follow-up using specific remote monitoring system, compliance with WCD is high and the device well-tolerated by the patient.