Combination of a subcutaneous ICD in a patient with a baroreceptor activation device: Feasibility, safety, and precautions: A Case Report

The efficacy of baroreflex activation therapy for heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of baroreflex activation therapy for heart failure is elusive. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of baroreflex activation therapy on treatment efficacy of heart failure.

METHODS

Several databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases have been searched, and we include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of baroreflex activation therapy for patients with heart failure.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 4 RCTs. Baroreflex activation therapy shows significantly positive impact on the quality of life score (standard mean difference SMD = -4.61; 95% confidence interval CI = -6.24 to -2.98; P < .00001), 6-minute hall walk (6MHW) distance (SMD = 2.83; 95% CI = 1.44- 4.22; P < .0001), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class (SMD = -3.23; 95% CI = -4.76 to -1.69; P < .0001), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (SMD = -1.24; 95% CI = -1.58 to -0.89; P < .00001) and the duration of hospitalization (SMD = -1.65; 95% CI = -2.90 to -0.39; P = .01) compared with control group for heart failure, but has no obvious effect on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (SMD = 1.43; 95% CI = -0.15-3.01; P = .08), or the number of hospitalization per year (SMD = -1.17; 95% CI = -2.56-0.22; P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Baroreflex activation therapy can improve the treatment efficacy for heart failure.

Spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy: 10 years of clinical experience and innovation

Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD™) therapy has been established in initial clinical trials and current international guideline recommendations for patients without demand for pacing, cardiac resynchronization, or antitachycardia pacing. The promising experience in ‘ideal’ S-ICD™ candidates increasingly encourages physicians to provide the benefits of S-ICD™ therapy to patients in clinical constellations beyond ‘classical’ indications of S-ICD™ therapy, which has led to a broadening of S-ICD™ indications in many centres. However, the decision for S-ICD™ implantation is still not covered by controlled randomized trials but rather relies on patient series or observational studies. Thus, this review intends to give a contemporary update on available empirical evidence data and technical advancements of S-ICD™ technology and sheds a spotlight on S-ICD™ therapy in recently discovered fields of indication beyond ideal preconditions. We discuss the eligibility for S-ICD™ therapy in Brugada syndrome as an example for an adverse and dynamic electrocardiographic pattern that challenges the S-ICD™ sensing and detection algorithms. Besides, the S-ICD™ performance and defibrillation efficacy in conditions of adverse structural remodelling as exemplified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is discussed. In addition, we review recent data on potential device interactions between S-ICD™ systems and other implantable cardio-active systems (e.g. pacemakers) including specific recommendations, how these could be prevented. Finally, we evaluate limitations of S-ICD™ therapy in adverse patient constitutions, like distinct obesity, and present contemporary strategies to assure proper S-ICD™ performance in these patients. Overall, the S-ICD™ performance is promising even for many patients, who may not be ‘classical’ candidates for this technology.