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 < 0.001), while median step count and HRV5 significantly increased (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, a delta of HRV5 > 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

Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring Using Wearables for Clinical Guidance before and after Catheter Ablation

Mobile health technologies are gaining importance in clinical decision-making. With the capability to monitor the patient’s heart rhythm, they have the potential to reduce the time to confirm a diagnosis and therefore are useful in patients eligible for screening of atrial fibrillation as well as in patients with symptoms without documented symptom rhythm correlation. Such is crucial to enable an adequate arrhythmia management including the possibility of a catheter ablation. After ablation, wearables can help to search for recurrences, in symptomatic as well as in asymptomatic patients. Furthermore, those devices can be used to search for concomitant arrhythmias and have the potential to help improving the short- and long-term patient management. The type of wearable as well as the adequate technology has to be chosen carefully for every situation and every individual patient, keeping different aspects in mind. This review aims to describe and to elaborate a potential workflow for the role of wearables for cardiac rhythm monitoring regarding detection and management of arrhythmias before and after cardiac electrophysiological procedures

The impact of Twitter/X promotion on visibility of research articles: Results of the #TweetTheJournal study

Aim: Social media (SoMe) are emerging as important tools for research dissemination. Twitter/X promotion has been shown to increase citation rates in well-established journals. We aimed to test the effect of a SoMe promotion strategy on the Mendeley reader counts, the Altmetric Attention Score and the number of citations in an upcoming open-access journal. Methods: The #TweetTheJournal study is a randomized, controlled study. Articles published in seven subsequent issues of the International Journal of Cardiology Heart &amp; Vasculature (April 2021-April 2022) were randomized to a Twitter/X promotion arm (articles were posted four times) and to a control arm (without active posting). Articles with accompanied editorials were excluded. Primary endpoint of the study was Mendeley reader count, secondary endpoints were Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations. Follow-up was one year. Results: SoMe promotion of articles showed no statistically significant difference in Mendeley reader counts or number of citations at one year follow up. SoMe promotion resulted in a statistically significant higher Altmetric Attention Score in the intervention compared to the control group (RR 1.604, 95 % CI 1.024–2.511, p = 0.039). In the overall group, Altmetric Attention Score showed a correlation with Mendeley reader counts (Spearman’s ρ = 0.202, p = 0.010) and Mendeley reader counts correlated significantly with number of citations (Spearman’s ρ = 0.372, p < 0.001). Conclusion: A dedicated SoMe promotion strategy did not result in statistically significant differences in early impact indicators as the Mendeley reader count in a upcoming journal, but increased the Altmetric Attention Score

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

Delayed Improvement of Left Ventricular Function in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Depends on Etiology&mdash;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 &plusmn; 8% and 10 &plusmn; 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

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

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