The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: current technology and evolving indications.

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

Risk stratification for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: the role of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.

The benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy depends upon appropriate evaluation of a persisting risk of sudden death and estimation of the patient's overall survival. Assessment of a stable and unchangeable arrhythmogenic substrate is often difficult. Structural abnormality and ventricular dysfunction, the two major risk parameters, may recover, and heart failure symptoms can improve so that ICD therapy may not be indicated. Risk stratification can take time while the patient continues to be at high risk of arrhythmic death, and patients may need temporary bridging by a defibrillator in cases of interrupted ICD therapy. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) combines a long-term electrocardiogram (ECG)-monitoring system with an external automatic defibrillator. The LIfeVest® (ZOLL, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) is composed of a garment, containing two defibrillation patch electrodes on the back, and an elastic belt with a front-defibrillation patch electrode and four non-adhesive ECG electrodes, connected to a monitoring and defibrillation unit. The WCD is a safe and effective tool to terminate ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation events, unless a conscious patient withholds shock delivery. It may be used in patients in the early phase after acute myocardial infarction with poor left ventricular function, after acute coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤35%), in patients with acute heart failure in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy of uncertain aetiology and prognosis. The WCD may be helpful in subjects with syncope of assumed tachyarrhythmia origin or in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. The WCD may replace ICD implantation in patients waiting for heart transplantation or who need a ventricular-assist device. This review describes the technical details and characteristics of the WCD, discusses its various potential applications, and reports the currently available experience with the wearable defibrillator.

Exercise testing for non-invasive assessment of atrial electrophysiological properties in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Experimental studies suggest that the autonomic nervous system modulates atrial refractoriness and conduction velocity in atrial fibrillation (AF). These modulatory effects are, however, difficult to assess in the clinical setting. This study sought to non-invasively characterize in patients with persistent AF, the influence of autonomic modulation induced by exercise on atrial fibrillatory rate as marker of atrial refractoriness and to identify clinical and electrocardiographic predictors of atrial rate response. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 24 patients (16 males, mean age 60 +/- 13 years) with persistent AF (16 +/- 25 months), continuous ECGs were recorded during bicycle exercise testing. Fibrillatory rate (in fibrillations per minute, fpm) was assessed at baseline and immediately after termination of exercise with spatiotemporal QRST cancellation and time-frequency analysis. Ventricular response was characterized by time-domain HRV indices. Exercise had no influence on mean fibrillatory rate (409 +/- 42 vs. 414 +/- 43 fpm, P = NS). Seven patients responded to exercise with an increase in fibrillatory rate (26 +/- 10 fpm, P < 0.001 and three with a decrease (-21 +/- 8 fpm, P < 0.001), while the remaining 14 patients did not show a response. Responders' HRV indices changed in response to exercise similarly to that of non-responders. Their baseline fibrillatory rate was, however, lower than that of non-responders (387 +/- 18 vs. 425 +/- 48 fpm, P = 0.028). No other clinical or echocardiographic variable was associated with fibrillatory rate response. Twelve weeks after cardioverson, responders were more likely to remain in sinus rhythm than non-responders (88 vs. 46 %, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-induced autonomic activation produces changes in atrial electrophysiological properties that can be detected by time-frequency analysis. Higher baseline fibrillatory rates are associated with an impaired atrial response to exercise that suggests advanced electrical remodelling and reduced sensitivity to autonomic stimuli.