A real world wearable cardioverter defibrillator experience - Very high appropriate shock rate in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients at a European single-center.

BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) has emerged as a valuable tool to protect patients with increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). We sought to characterize WCD patients and to analyze predictors of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) occurrence and WCD shock delivery. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients with WCD use were included in the study. Indications were mainly ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; 31.6%), non-ICM (45.6%) and explantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator due to device infection (11.4%). We observed sustained VA in 9.6% of the study population and 6.1% received an appropriate shock. VA occurred in 16.7% of ICM, 3.8% of non-ICM and 15.4% of patients with device infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a very high rate of sustained VA in patients at risk for SCD during WCD use. ICM patients, including those with recent MI, bore the highest risk.

Increased mortality and ICD therapies in ischemic versus non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients with cardiac resynchronization having survived until first device replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy combined with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) is widely applied in heart failure patients. Sufficient data on arrhythmia and defibrillator therapies during long-term follow-up of more than 4 years are lacking and data on mortality are conflicting. We aimed to characterize the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia, respective defibrillator therapies and mortality for several years following CRT-D implantation or upgrade. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with ischemic (ICM) or non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and at least one CRT-D replacement were included in this study and analyzed for incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), defibrillator shocks, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and mortality. RESULTS: ICM was the underlying disease in 59%, DCM in 41% of patients. During a mean follow-up of 76.4 ±24.8 months the incidence of appropriate defibrillator therapies (shock or ATP) was 46.6% and was elevated in ICM compared to DCM patients (57.7% vs. 30.6%, respectively; p = 0.017). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly higher ICD therapy-free survival rates in DCM patients (p = 0.031). Left ventricular ejection fraction, NSVT per year and ICM (vs. DCM) were independent predictors of device intervention. The ICM patients showed increased mortality compared to DCM patients, with cumulative all-cause mortality at 9 years of follow-up of 45.4% and 10.6%, respectively. Chronic renal failure, peripheral artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of patients with ICM and DCM treated with CRT-D differs significantly during long-term follow-up, with increased mortality and incidence of ICD therapies in ICM patients.