Efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with and without obesity: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as an alternative to transvenous systems for prevention of sudden cardiac death. However, concerns have been raised regarding its efficacy and safety in obese individuals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in patients with obesity by assessing the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted for English-language peer-reviewed studies reporting clinical outcomes in S-ICD recipients with (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2). Data on preimplantation screening failure, defibrillation testing, complications, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, and survival were analyzed using standard, random-effects, meta-analytical techniques. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies involving 20,486 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in mean BMI values of patients with failed or successful preimplantation screening (mean difference -0.60 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.06 to 0.86). Obesity was associated with higher rates of failed defibrillation testing at ≤65 J (odds ratio [OR] 2.16; 95% CI 1.39-3.35), and malpositioning/suboptimal positioning occurred more frequently in obese compared to nonobese patients (OR 3.37; 95% CI 1.76-6.44). Increased BMI as a continuous variable (per increase in 1 kg/m2 BMI) was associated with elevated defibrillation thresholds (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.08); higher risk of complications (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05); a trend toward an increased number of appropriate shocks (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04); and no significant increase in the risk of inappropriate shocks (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.03). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis underscores the importance of considering obesity in S-ICD implantation decisions. Although S-ICD remains effective in obese patients, attention to potential technical challenges and higher complication rates is warranted.

Key influences of VDD (DX) ICD selection: Results from a prospective, national survey.

BACKGROUND: To preserve the benefit of atrial sensing without the implantation of an additional lead, a single-lead ICD system with a floating atrial dipole (DX ICD) has been developed. The purpose of this nationwide survey was to provide an overview of the current key influences of device selection focusing on DX ICD and to test the applicability of a previously published decision-making flowchart of ICD-type selection. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all implanting centers in Hungary. Eleven centers reported data from 361 DX ICD and 10 CRT-DX systems implantations between February 2021 and May 2023. RESULTS: The most important influencing clinical factors indicated by the participating doctors were elevated risk of atrial fibrillation (AF)/stroke (56%), risk of sinus/supraventricular tachycardias (SVT) (42%), and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future (36%). The DX ICD was considered in the majority of cases instead of the VVI system (87%), and only in a small proportion instead of a DDD ICD (13%). 60% of the patients with DX ICDs were also included into remote monitoring-based follow-up. In 83% of the cases, good (>2 mV) or excellent (>5) atrial signal amplitude was recorded within 6 weeks after the implantation. CONCLUSION: In the current national survey, the most important influencing factors indicated by the implanters for selecting a DX ICD were the elevated risk of stroke or sinus/SVT and a potential need for CRT upgrade in the future. These findings support the use of a previously published decision-making flowchart.

Clinical Impact of Digitalis Therapy in a Large Multicenter Cohort of CRT-Recipients.

(1) Introduction: Digitalis use in patients with severe heart failure is controversial. We assessed the effects of digitalis therapy on mortality in a large, observational study in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator in three European tertiary referral centers were enrolled and followed-up for a mean 37 months ± 28 months. Digitalis use was assessed at the time of CRT implantation. A multivariate Cox-regression model and propensity score matching were used to determine all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint. CRT-response (defined as improvement of ≥1 NYHA class), echocardiographic improvement (defined as improvement of LVEF of ≥ 5%) and incidence of ICD shocks and rehospitalization were assessed as secondary endpoints in a subgroup of patients. (3) Results: The study comprised 552 CRT-recipients with standard indications, including 219 patients (40%) treated with digitalis. Compared to patients without digitalis, they had more often atrial fibrillation, poorer LVEF and a higher NYHA class (all p ≤ 0.002). Crude analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated a similar relative risk of death for patients with and without digitalis (HR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.88-1.5; p = 0.40). After adjustment for independent predictors of mortality, digitalis therapy did not alter the risk for death (adjusted HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75-1.45; p = 0.82). Furthermore, in comparison to 286 propensity-score-matched patients, mortality was not affected by digitalis intake (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.72-1.70; p = 0.64). A CRT-response was predominant in digitalis non-users, concerning both improvement of HF symptoms and LVEF (NYHA p < 0.01; LVEF p < 0.01), while patients on digitalis had more often ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring ICD shock (p = 0.01); although, rehospitalization for cardiac reasons was significantly lower among digitalis users compared to digitalis non-users (HR = 0.58; 95% C. I. 0.40-0.85; p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: Digitalis therapy had no effect on mortality, but was associated with a reduced response to CRT and increased susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD shock treatment. Although, digitalis administration positively altered the likelihood for cardiac rehospitalization during follow-up.

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

The effect of kidney function on guideline-directed medical therapy implementation and prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction (KD) is a main limiting factor of applying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and reaching the recommended target doses (TD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to assess the success of optimization, long-term applicability, and adherence of neurohormonal antagonist triple therapy (TT:RASi [ACEi/ARB/ARNI] + ßB + MRA) according to the KD after a HF hospitalization and to investigate its impact on prognosis. METHODS: The data of 247 real-world, consecutive patients were analyzed who were hospitalized in 2019-2021 for HFrEF and then were followed-up for 1 year. The application and the ratio of reached TD of TT at hospital discharge and at 1 year were assessed comparing KD categories (eGFR: ≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44, <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). Moreover, 1-year all-cause mortality and rehospitalization rates in KD subgroups were investigated. RESULTS: Majority of the patients received TT at hospital discharge (77%) and at 1 year (73%). More severe KD led to a lower application ratio (p < .05) of TT (92%, 88%, 80%, 73%, 31%) at discharge and at 1 year (81%, 76%, 76%, 68%, 40%). Patients with more severe KD were less likely (p < .05) to receive TD of MRA (81%, 68%, 78%, 61%, 52%) at discharge and a RASi (53%, 49%, 45%, 21%, 27%) at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality (14%, 15%, 16%, 33%, 48%, p < .001), the ratio of all-cause rehospitalizations (30%, 35%, 40%, 43%, 52%, p = .028), and rehospitalizations for HF (8%, 13%, 18%, 20%, 38%, p = .001) were significantly higher in more severe KD categories. CONCLUSIONS: KD unfavorably affects the application of TT in HFrEF, however poorer mortality and rehospitalization rates among them highlight the role of the conscious implementation and up-titration of GDMT.

The Impact of Specialised Heart Failure Outpatient Care on the Long-Term Application of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and on Prognosis in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + ßB + MRA) was higher (p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, ßB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401-0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.