Indications for and outcome in patients with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in a nurse-based training programme: results of the Austrian WCD Registry.

BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is a treatment option for patients at temporarily high risk of sudden cardiac death or in whom implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator is temporarily not possible. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on patients receiving this therapy in a nurse-based wearable cardioverter-defibrillator training programme. METHODS: A registry including all patients prescribed with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in Austria between 2010 and 2016. Overall, 448 patients received a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in 48 centres. Patients received structured nurse-based wearable cardioverter-defibrillator educational initial training followed by remote monitoring. RESULTS: Main indications were: severe non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (21%); recent myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention (20%); and stable coronary artery disease with percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass grafting (14%). Eleven patients (2.5%) received 22 appropriate wearable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks. Two patients (0.4%) received three inappropriate shocks. The risk of sudden cardiac death varied between different aetiologies. Eight out of 11 (73%) patients received their first wearable cardioverter-defibrillator shock within 30 days. The main reasons for termination of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy were implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation (55.5%) and improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction to more than 35% (33%). CONCLUSION: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is an effective and safe treatment option in patients at either transiently elevated risk of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or mandated postponed implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, with a 2.5% shock rate over a median 54 days wearable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment period. However, both the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator shock rate and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation rate vary widely depending on the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator indication. Nurse-based wearable cardioverter-defibrillator training is associated with high patient adherence, with a median wearing duration per day of 23.5 (1-24) hours.

Is there a difference in rhythm outcome between patients undergoing first line versus second line paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation?

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established second line therapy for patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF (PAF) and may be considered as a first line therapy in selected patients who are highly symptomatic, considering patient choice, benefit, and risk, according to recent guidelines. Our study investigated whether a first line vs. second line ablation approach may result in improved sinus rhythm maintenance after ablation. METHODS: A total of 153 patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for PAF were included in the study (age 55±12 years, 29% female). Seventy-nine patients underwent first line AF ablation and 74 patients underwent second line AF ablation after failed antiarrhythmic drug therapy. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics such as age, history of AF, left atrial size or LVEF between groups. Success was defined as atrial tachyarrhythmia free survival during a 12-month follow-up by means of serial ECG Holter monitoring. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in cumulative arrhythmia-free survival between those patients who received AF ablation as a first or second line therapy. Single procedure success was 78% in the first line group vs. 81% in the second line group; multiple procedure success was 90 vs. 91%, (n.s.). Complication rate was 1.3% vs. 1.4% (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Success of AF ablation did not differ between patients who receive ablation as first vs. second line therapy. Based on these data, a trial of AAD therapy before AF ablation may be justified in most patients with symptomatic PAF eligible for rhythm control.