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.

Evaluation of a Standardized Training and Adherence Surveillance Programme to Overcome Quality-of-Life Impairments and Enhance Compliance in Patients Treated with Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator.

Background: Treatment with wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) is a non-invasive, transient therapy option for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with temporary contraindications for implantation of a permanent cardioverter defibrillator. Due to the constant risk of fatal arrhythmias, compliance is the fundamental requirement for effectiveness of a WCD, but this might be hindered by the poor quality-of-life (QoL) during WCD therapy. In this retrospective single-center study, we examined if a standardized WCD training and adherence surveillance programme could enhance compliance and QoL. Methods: All patients with a prescription for WCD treatment from January 2017 to August 2019 were included and received a standardized WCD training programme. QoL was validated using the modified EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. The findings were compared to a historical, previously published, retrospective cohort from our center (WCD prescription period 03/2012-02/2016), not receiving the additional training programme. Endpoints comprised therapy adherence, arrhythmic episodes, and dimensions of QoL. Results: Ninety-two patients underwent WCD treatment in the study cohort for a median of 49 days. Median daily wear time was enhanced in the study cohort (historical cohort vs study cohort 21.9 vs 23.3 hours/per day, p<0.01) and artefact alarms occurred less frequently (67.9% vs 48.9%, p 0.01). Major restrictions in QoL in the study cohort were found in mobility (48%), daily routine (44%), and sleep (49%), but the dimensions pain (36% vs 4%, p<0.01), mental health (43% vs 29%, p 0.03), and restrictions in daily routine (48% vs 30%, p 0.04) improved. Conclusion: A standardized training and adherence surveillance programme might have beneficial effects on compliance and QoL. As these findings are essential for therapy success, they might potentially lead to a reduction in arrhythmic deaths in upcoming WCD trials.

Assessing physical activity with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure.

Background: The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD), (LifeVest, ZOLL, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) is a medical device designed for the temporary detection and treatment of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. WCD telemonitoring features enable the evaluation of the physical activity (PhA) of the patients. We sought to assess with the WCD the PhA of patients with newly diagnosed heart failure. Methods: We collected and analyzed the data of all patients treated with the WCD in our clinic. Patients with newly diagnosed ischemic, or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and severely reduced ejection fraction, who were treated with the WCD for at least 28 consecutive days and had a compliance of at least 18 h the day were included. Results: Seventy-seven patients were eligible for analysis. Thirty-seven patients suffered from ischemic and 40 from non-ischemic heart disease. The average days the WCD was carried was 77.3 ± 44.6 days and the mean wearing time was 22.8 ± 2.1 h. The patients showed significantly increased PhA measured by daily steps between the first two and the last two weeks (Mean steps in the first 2 weeks: 4,952.6 ± 3,052.7 vs. mean steps in the last 2 weeks: 6,119.6 ± 3,776.2, p-value: < 0.001). In the end of the surveillance period an increase of the ejection fraction was observed (LVEF-before: 25.8 ± 6.6% vs. LVEF-after: 37.5 ± 10.6%, p < 0.001). Improvement of the EF did not correlate with the improvement of PhA. Conclusion: The WCD provides useful information regarding patient PhA and may be additionally utilized for early heart failure treatment adjustment.

Real-world experience with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator: clinical effectiveness and wear-time adherence in patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies established a role for the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) to effectively and safely bridge temporary risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with advanced heart failure. The prognostic relevance of the WCD remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated adherence to, as well as the safety and effectiveness of, WCD use in a real-world cohort of patients at high risk for SCD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive patients (n = 83) receiving a WCD at a German tertiary care hospital between April 2012 and December 2019 were retrospectively included in this analysis. Patient characteristics were collected at the time of the index hospitalization. Using the Zoll® lifeVest® (ZOLL Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA, USA) network database, two separate investigators evaluated adherence to the WCD as well as arrhythmic events during WCD wear time. RESULTS: During 3680 wearing days (mean WCD wear time, 44 days) with a median daily wear time of 23.1 h, three arrhythmic events of relevance (sustained ventricular tachycardia, VT) occurred, one of which was sufficiently terminated by WCD shock. Another patient died from sudden cardiac death while pausing his WCD. Right bundle branch block correlated significantly with sustained VT occurrence (r = 0.3315; 95% CI -0.1265 to 0.3014; p = 0.0022). In 30 patients (36.1%) a cardioverter/defibrillator was implanted. CONCLUSION: In a real-life clinical setting, the use of WCD in patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death is effective and safe and adherence to the device is high. The event rate for VA was lower than in comparable patient cohorts. Adherence remains a crucial issue as one patient in the present series died while not wearing the device.

Peripartum management of patient with long QT3 after successful implantable cardioverter defibrillator device discharge resulting in device failure: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Long QT3 syndrome type 3 (LQT3) is a gain of function mutation of the SCN5A gene that is inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion. Long QT3 syndrome type 3 results in an increase in arrhythmic events during rest, sleep, and bradycardia by extending the QT interval and inducing Torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Attempting to block the sodium channel with Class I anti-arrhythmics or blocking adrenergic tone with beta-blockers especially in women has shown to be beneficial. There have been few large-scale studies on treating patients with LQT3 due to its lethality and underreported number of cases. Specifically, the safety and efficacy of pharmacologic treatment in pregnant LQT3 patients are unknown. CASE SUMMARY: This case demonstrates the safe use of Mexiletine and Propranolol in a 3rd-trimester pregnant LQT3 patient after a presumed ventricular arrhythmia and device-lead electrical short from therapy rendered her implantable cardioverter defibrillator inoperable in a VVI mode (venticular demand pacing). With appropriate medications, the patient was safely monitored through the remainder of her pregnancy and safely delivered at 36 weeks of pregnancy a healthy baby girl. The daughter, heterozygous for LQT3, showed no evidence of intrauterine growth restriction or other side effects from the medications. DISCUSSION: There are many variants of the SCN5A gene mutations that can lead to different phenotypes and not all mutations are responsive to the same medications. In this case, Mexiletine and Propranolol, both of which have only recently shown to benefit certain variants or LQT3 respectively, were safely started during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy without harming the foetus.

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.