Left ventricular assist device: a bridge to transplant or destination therapy?

Heart failure is a major problem worldwide; it is the leading cause of hospitalisation and is posing a huge financial burden. Advances in healthcare have contributed to increased life expectancy, with a resultant increase in the number of patients with chronic heart failure. For many patients who are still severely symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy and cardiac resynchronisation therapy, cardiac transplantation would be the preferred treatment option. However, hopes are cut short with a limited donor pool of hearts for the increasing number of patients requiring cardiac transplantation. One uprising method to fill this treatment void for patients with advanced end-stage heart failure (ESHF) is the Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). Although traditionally used as a bridge to transplantation, owing to limitation of suitable donors, evidence suggests increasing potential for the use of LVAD as destination therapy (DT), that is, lifelong permanent support. Exploration of DT is a promising avenue to many patients suffering with ESHF who may never be fortunate enough to receive a heart transplant, but not without reservations of its efficacy, safety, effects on quality-adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness, especially in comparison to heart transplantation.

Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events. OBJECTIVE: This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm. RESULTS: In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.

The primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the recent 'first wave' of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) has triaged planned services to create surge capacity. The primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was in a grey area of triage guidance, but it was suggested as a procedure that could be reasonably stopped. Recent reports have highlighted deaths of patients awaiting ICDs who may have been deferred during the pandemic. In our trust we reorganised our device service and continued to implant primary prevention ICDs during the 'first wave' and, here, report that most patients wished to proceed and underwent uncomplicated implantations. One patient later died from COVID-19, although the transmission site cannot be definitively concluded. With strict adherence to public health guidance and infection prevention strategies, we believe that ICD implantation can be performed safely during the pandemic, and this should be standard practice during subsequent surges.