Search

Introduction: Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCD) have emerged as a valuable tool in the management of patients at risk for life-threatening arrhythmias. These devices offer a non-invasive and temporary solution, providing continuous monitoring and the potential for prompt defibrillation when needed. In this study, we explore the use of WCD and evaluate arrhythmic events through comprehensive monitoring., Methods: From November 2022 to May 2024, we conducted an outpatient follow-up of 41 patients receiving WCD. Regular check-ups, remote monitoring and comprehensive echocardiography were performed to optimise a tailored therapy., Results: The average age of the patients was 59.2.4±16.5 years, with 78% being male. Among the cohort, 54% had hypertension, 41% were smokers and 66% had dyslipidaemia, while 27% were diabetic. WCD was assigned according to the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists position paper focussing on the appropriate use of WCD and European Society of Cardiology guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: 24 (58%) patients had a de novo diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, 11 (27%) patients had a recent acute coronary syndrome and ejection fraction <35%, 3 (7%) patients had a cardiac electronic device extraction and 3 (7%) patients had myocarditis with features of electrical instability. The average follow-up was 62±38 days according to specific aetiology, with a daily wearing time of 22.7±1.3 hours. No device interventions were recorded. At the end of the follow-up period, 15 patients still required an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Among these, 12 patients (29%) underwent ICD implantation. Two patients (5%) declined the procedure., Conclusions: The use of WCD for patients at high risk of arrhythmias allowed to optimise therapy and limit the indications for ICD. Inappropriate implantation of ICD was avoided in 69% of patients who received WCD. The device showed a good safety profile, low incidence of device interventions and adequate patients' adherence to WCD use., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Sporadic high impedance values without other anomalies detected by remote monitoring of hybrid cardiac implantable electronic device systems have been described recently. The clinical significance and related hazard of this phenomenon are not fully understood., Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence, management, and outcomes associated with hybrid implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems., Methods: We collected data on patients with sporadic high lead impedance alert on remote monitoring who had undergone implantation with a hybrid ICD system between January 2015 and December 2019. Pacing thresholds, sensing and impedance values, and temporal pattern of impedance values were collected by remote monitoring, at implantation, and during an in-office visit., Results: Among 92 patients receiving a hybrid ICD, 15 (16.3%) had high impedance alert on remote monitoring (14 Boston Scientific and 1 St. Jude Medical ICD canisters paired with Medtronic or Biotronik DF-1 leads). Four patients had a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D), 7 a dual-chamber ICD, and 4 a single-chamber ICD. Three patients presented with high atrial lead impedance, 7 high right ventricular lead impedance, 1 high left ventricular impedance, and 2 high shock impedance values. All patients underwent follow-up by remote monitoring. Sporadic high impedance values were not associated with an adverse outcome or need for revision in all but 1 patient, who had continuously increasing pacing thresholds due to lead microfracture., Conclusion: In the absence of clear signs of lead fracture or connection issues, sporadic high pacing and shock impedance in hybrid implantable defibrillator systems can be safely managed by close follow-up., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of this multicentre, observational, transversal study was to evaluate pacemaker (PM) choice and setting in a large number of patients, in order to understand their relationship with the patients' clinical characteristics., Methods and Results: The study enrolled a total of 1858 patients (71 ± 14 years, 54% male), consecutively evaluated during scheduled PM follow-up visits in 7 Italian cardiac arrhythmia centres. To evaluate the appropriateness of PM choice in relation to the patients' clinical characteristics, we analysed their rhythm disorders at the time of device implantation and the characteristics of the devices implanted. To evaluate the appropriateness of device setting, current rhythm disorders and device setting at the time of enrolment were analysed. In the overall study population, 64.3% of the patients received a PM with all of the features required for their rhythm disorder [80.8% in persistent atrioventricular (AV) block, 76.5% in atrial fibrillation needing pacing, 71.0% in sinus node disease, 58.7% in non-persistent atrioventricular block (AVB), 52.7% in neuro-mediated syncope]. The most frequent cause of inappropriate PM choice was the lack of an algorithm to promote intrinsic AV conduction in non-persistent AVB patients (38.1%). In 76.2% of the patients with an appropriate PM (n = 1301), the PM was optimally set for their rhythm disorder., Conclusions: In the present 'real-world' registry, a large number of patients (35.7%) did not receive an optimal PM for their rhythm disorders. Moreover, one-fourth of appropriate PMs were not programmed according to the patients' clinical characteristics., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)