Feasibility and First Results of Heart Failure Monitoring Using the Wearable Cardioverter–Defibrillator in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The wearable cardioverter–defibrillator (WCD) is used in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition to arrhythmic events, the WCD provides near-continuous telemetric heart failure monitoring. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of additionally recorded parameters, such as heart rate or step count. We included patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF prescribed with a WCD. Via the WCD, step count and heart rate were acquired, and an approximate for heart rate variability (HRV5) was calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze predictors for an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Two hundred and seventy-six patients (31.9% female) were included. Mean LVEF was 25.3 ± 8.5%. Between the first and last seven days of usage, median heart rate fell significantly (p p 23 ms was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement of ≥10% between prescription and 3-month follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF showed significant changes in heart rate, step count, and HRV5 between the beginning and end of WCD prescription time. HRV5 was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement and could serve as an early indicator of treatment response

Changes in eligibility for a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator after implantation of a left ventricular assist device-A prospective analysis.

BackgroundThe number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted in patients with end-stage heart failure is increasing. In this patient cohort, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) could be a promising alternative to transvenous ICDs due to lower infection rates and avoidance of venous access. However, eligibility for the S-ICD depends on ECG features that may be influenced by an LVAD. The aim of the present study was a prospective evaluation of S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation.MethodsThe study recruited all patients presenting at Hannover Medical School for LVAD implantation between 2016 and 2020. S-ICD eligibility was evaluated using the ECG-based and the device-based S-ICD screening test before and after LVAD implantation.ResultsTwenty-two patients (57.3 ± 8.7 years of age, 95.5% male) were included in the analysis. The most common underlying diseases were dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 16, 72.7%) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 5, 22.7%). Before LVAD implantation 16 patients were found eligible for the S-ICD according to both screening tests (72.7%), but only 7 patients were eligible after LVAD, 31.8%; p = 0.05). Oversensing due to electromagnetic interference was observed in 6 patients (66.6%) found ineligible for S-ICD after LVAD implantation. A lower S wave amplitude in leads I (p = 0.009), II (p = 0.006) and aVF (p = 0.006) before LVAD implantation was associated with higher rate of S-ICD ineligibility after LVAD implantation.ConclusionLVAD implantation can impair S-ICD eligibility. Patients with lower S wave amplitude in leads I, II and aVF were more likely to be ineligible for S-ICD implantation after LVAD implantation. Thus, S-ICD therapy should be carefully considered in patients who are candidates for LVAD therapy

Eligibility for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with left ventricular assist device

Purpose!#!The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD.!##!Methods!#!Seventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients.!##!Results!#!Fifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result.!##!Conclusions!#!Patients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population

Delayed Improvement of Left Ventricular Function in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Depends on Etiology—A PROLONG-II Substudy

In patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), three months of optimal therapy are recommended before considering a primary preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). It is unclear which patients benefit from a prolonged waiting period under protection of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) to avoid unnecessary ICD implantations. This study included all patients receiving a WCD for newly diagnosed HFrEF (n = 353) at our center between 2012 and 2017. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. From baseline until three months, LVEF improved in patients with all peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). Beyond this time, LVEF improved in PPCM and DCM only (10 ± 8% and 10 ± 12%, respectively), whereas patients with ICM showed no further improvement. The patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF were compared to 29 patients with a distinct WCD indication, which is an explantation of an infected ICD. This latter group had a higher incidence of WCD shocks and poorer overall survival. All-cause mortality should be considered when deciding on WCD prescription. In patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF, the potential for delayed LVEF recovery should be considered when timing ICD implantation, especially in patients with PPCM and DCM

Evolution of S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation.

LVAD = left ventricular assist device; S-ICD = subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; EMI = electromagnetic interference.</p

Electrocardiographic parameters (n = 22) before implantation of the left ventricular assist device.

Electrocardiographic parameters (n = 22) before implantation of the left ventricular assist device.</p

Baseline patient characteristics (n = 22).

BackgroundThe number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted in patients with end-stage heart failure is increasing. In this patient cohort, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) could be a promising alternative to transvenous ICDs due to lower infection rates and avoidance of venous access. However, eligibility for the S-ICD depends on ECG features that may be influenced by an LVAD. The aim of the present study was a prospective evaluation of S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation.MethodsThe study recruited all patients presenting at Hannover Medical School for LVAD implantation between 2016 and 2020. S-ICD eligibility was evaluated using the ECG-based and the device-based S-ICD screening test before and after LVAD implantation.ResultsTwenty-two patients (57.3 ± 8.7 years of age, 95.5% male) were included in the analysis. The most common underlying diseases were dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 16, 72.7%) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 5, 22.7%). Before LVAD implantation 16 patients were found eligible for the S-ICD according to both screening tests (72.7%), but only 7 patients were eligible after LVAD, 31.8%; p = 0.05). Oversensing due to electromagnetic interference was observed in 6 patients (66.6%) found ineligible for S-ICD after LVAD implantation. A lower S wave amplitude in leads I (p = 0.009), II (p = 0.006) and aVF (p = 0.006) before LVAD implantation was associated with higher rate of S-ICD ineligibility after LVAD implantation.ConclusionLVAD implantation can impair S-ICD eligibility. Patients with lower S wave amplitude in leads I, II and aVF were more likely to be ineligible for S-ICD implantation after LVAD implantation. Thus, S-ICD therapy should be carefully considered in patients who are candidates for LVAD therapy.</div

Fig 2 -

Sankey plot showing the number of eligible vectors before and after LVAD implantation using the ECG-based (A) and the device-based (B) S-ICD screening test. LVAD = left ventricular assist device.</p

Comparison of recorded parameters between patients eligible and ineligible for S-ICD implantation after implantation of left ventricular assist device.

Comparison of recorded parameters between patients eligible and ineligible for S-ICD implantation after implantation of left ventricular assist device.</p

Number of patients found eligible for S-ICD implantation before and after LVAD implantation using the ECG-based screening test and the device-based screening test, respectively.

LVAD = left ventricular assist device; S-ICD = subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; * = p < 0.05, ns = not significant.</p