Predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator: an international multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) can protect patients from sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias and serve as a bridge to decision of definite defibrillator implantation. The aim of this analysis from an international, multicenter WCD registry was to identify predictors of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in this population. METHODS: One thousand six hundred seventy-five patients with WCD were included in a multicenter registry from 9 European centers, with a median follow-up of 440 days (IQR 120-893). The primary study end point was the occurrence of sustained VT/VF. RESULTS: Sustained VT was detected by WCD in 5.4% and VF in 0.9% of all patients. Of the 30.3% of patients receiving ICD implantation during follow-up, sustained VT was recorded in 9.3% and VF in 2.6%. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 0.5, p < 0.001), and medication with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR 0.7, p = 0.027) and aldosterone antagonists (HR 0.7, p = 0.005) were associated with a significantly lower risk of VT/VF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received WCD due to a transient increased risk of sudden cardiac death have a comparatively lower risk of VT/VF in the presence of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Of note, optimal medical treatment for heart failure not only results in an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction but also in a reduction in the risk for VT/VF.

Use of the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Among Patients With Myocarditis and Reduced Ejection Fraction or Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia: Data From a Multicenter Registry.

Background Data on the use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) among patients with myocarditis remain sparse. Consequently, evidence for guideline recommendations in this patient population is lacking. Methods and Results In total, 1596 consecutive patients were included in a multicenter registry from 8 European centers, with 124 patients (8%) having received the WCD due to myocarditis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The mean age was 51.6±16.3 years, with 74% being male. Patients were discharged after index hospitalization on heart failure medication: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (62.5%), angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (22.9%), aldosterone-antagonists (51%), or beta blockers (91.4%). The initial median left ventricular ejection fraction was 30% (22%-45%) and increased to 48% (39%-55%) over long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The median BNP (brain natriuretic peptide) level at baseline was 1702 pg/mL (565-3748) and decreased to 188 pg/mL (26-348) over long-term follow-up (P=0.022). The mean wear time was 79.7±52.1 days and 21.0±4.9 hours per day. Arrhythmic event rates documented by the WCD were 9.7% for nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, 6.5% for sustained ventricular tachycardia, and 0% for ventricular fibrillation. Subsequently, 2.4% of patients experienced an appropriate WCD shock. The rate of inappropriate WCD shocks was 0.8%. All 3 patients with appropriate WCD shock had experienced ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation before WCD prescription, with only 1 patient showing a left ventricular ejection fraction <35%. Conclusions Patients with myocarditis and risk for occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia may benefit from WCD use. Prior ventricular arrhythmia might appear as a better risk predictor than a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <35% in this population.

Age differences of patients treated with wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicentre registry.

BACKGROUND: Wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) are used as a 'bridging' technology in patients, who are temporarily at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Several factors should be taken into consideration, for example patient selection, compliance and optimal drug treatment, when WCD is prescribed. We aimed to present real-world data from seven centres from Germany and Switzerland according to age differences regarding the outcome, prognosis, WCD data and compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 04/2012 and 03/2021, 1105 patients were included in this registry. Outcome data according to age differences (old ≥45 years compared to young <45 years) were analysed. At young age, WCDs were more often prescribed due to congenital heart disease and myocarditis. On the other hand, ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) was more present in older patients. Wear days of WCD were similar between both groups (p = .115). In addition, during the WCD use, documented arrhythmic life-threatening events were comparable [sustained ventricular tachycardia: 5.8% vs. 7.7%, ventricular fibrillation (VF) .5% vs. .6%] and consequently the rate of appropriate shocks was similar between both groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction improvement was documented over follow-up with a better improvement in younger patients as compared to older patients (77% vs. 63%, p = .002). In addition, at baseline, the rate of atrial fibrillation was significantly higher in the older age group (23% vs. 8%; p = .001). The rate of permanent cardiac implantable electronic device implantation (CiED) was lower in the younger group (25% vs. 36%, p = .05). The compliance rate defined as wearing WCD at least 20 h per day was significantly lower in young patients compared to old patients (68.9% vs. 80.9%, p < .001). During the follow-up, no significant difference regarding all-cause mortality or arrhythmic death was documented in both groups. A low compliance rate of wearing WCD is predicted by young patients and patients suffering from non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. CONCLUSION: Although the compliance rate in different age groups is high, the average wear hours tended to be lower in young patients compared to older patients. The clinical events were similar in younger patients compared to older patients.

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 = .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 = .001), females received it more frequently due to nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (55.8% vs. 42.7%); p = .009). The wear time of WCD was equivalent in both groups (21.1 ± 4.3 h/days in males vs. 21.5 ± 4.4 h/days in females; p = .27; and 62.6 ± 44.3 days in males vs. 56.5 ± 39 days in females; p = .15). Mortality was comparable in both groups at 2-year-follow-up (6.8% in males vs. 9.7% in females; p = .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 = .07) (35.1% in males vs. 31.8% in females; p = .37), respectively. In age tertile analysis, compliance was observed more in 73-91 years old group as compared with 14-51 years old group (87.8% vs. 68.3%; p < .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.

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.

Comparison of the Outcome of Patients Protected by the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) for <90 Wear Days versus ≥90 Wear Days.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) is recommended to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Guidelines suggest a 90 days' period, but prolongation of WCD wear time until increasing the ejection fraction (≥35%) might be suggested. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 153 patients with prescribed WCD were divided into two groups: A <90 wear days' group (n=112) vs. ≥90 wear days' group (n=41) and followed. RESULTS: In the first group, WCD shock occurred in 3.6% of patients, 47.3% improved in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 3 months, and 37.5% had a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation with appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock events occurring in 6 patients. Two of these patients already received WCD shock therapy due to ventricular fibrillation. A 20.5% improved in LVEF after 6-12 months, but 73% were already implanted with ICD. In the second group, 4.9% received WCD shock, 34.1% improved in LVEF after 3 months, 48.8% were implanted with ICD, and 2 had ICD shocks during follow up time. LVEF improvement after 6-12 months occurred in 26.8%. ICD implantation was prevented in 7.3% of patients due to LVEF recovery. CONCLUSION: Prolonging wearing days of WCD may reduce the number of inappropriate ICD implantation.

The Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: Experience in 153 Patients and a Long-Term Follow-Up.

Background: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is available for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) when immediate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not possible or indicated. Patient selection remains challenging especially in primary prevention. Long-term data on these patients is still lacking. METHODS: 153 patients were included in this study. They were prescribed the WCD between April 2012 and March 2019 at the University Medical Center, Mannheim, Germany. The mean follow-up period was 36.2 ± 15.6 months. Outcome data, including all-cause mortality, were analyzed by disease etiology and ICD implantation following WCD use. RESULTS: We analyzed 56 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, 70 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 16 patients with prior need for ICD/CRT-D (device for cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator) explanation, 8 patients with acute myocarditis and 3 patients with congenital diseases. 58% of the patients did not need ICD/CRT-D implantation after WCD use. 4% of all patients suffered from appropriate WCD shocks. 2 of these patients (33%) experienced appropriate ICD shocks after implantation due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Long-term follow-up shows a good overall survival. All-cause mortality was 10%. There was no significant difference between patients with or without subsequent ICD implantation (p = 0.48). Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy numerically showed a higher long-term mortality than patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (14% vs. 6%, p = 0.13) and received significantly more ICD shocks after implantation (10% of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients versus 3% of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients, p = 0.04). All patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias during WCD use or after ICD implantation survived the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Following WCD use, ICD implantation could be avoided in 58% of patients. Long-term follow-up shows good overall survival. The majority of all patients did not suffer from WCD shocks nor did receive ICD shocks after subsequent implantation. Patient selection regarding predictive conditions on long-term risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias needs further risk stratification.