Search

BackgroundData on the use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in patients suffering from inherited and congenital heart disease are limited. Consequently, evidence for guideline recommendations in this patient population is lacking.MethodsIn total 1,675 patients were included in a multicenter registry of eight European centers. In the present cohort, we included 18 patients suffering from congenital and inherited heart disease.ResultsNine patients (50%) were male with a mean age of 41.3 ± 16.4 years. Four patients suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), four patients suffered from non-compaction cardiomyopathy (NCCM), two patients were diagnosed with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and one patient suffered from muscular dystrophy of the limb-girdle type with cardiac involvement, secondary cardiomyopathy. Three patients presented with Brugada syndrome (BrS). One patient suffered from long-QT syndrome type 1 (LQTS1). Furthermore, two patients had congenital heart defects and one patient suffered from cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). There were no appropriate/inappropriate shocks with the WCD in this cohort. One patient had recurrent self-limiting sustained ventricular tachycardia during the wear time, but actively inhibited a shock and was hospitalized. The compliance rate in this cohort was 77.8% with a mean wear time of 45.3 ± 26.9 days with a mean follow-up time of 570 ± 734 days. 55.6% (10/18) of the patients received an ICD after WCD wear time.ConclusionsThis retrospective study of patients with inherited and congenital heart disease shows that WCD use is not beneficial in the majority of patients with inherited and congenital heart disease.

Background Data on the use of the wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator (WCD) among patients with myocarditis remain sparse. Consequently, evidence for guideline recommendations in this patient population is lacking. Methods and Results In total, 1596 consecutive patients were included in a multicenter registry from 8 European centers, with 124 patients (8%) having received the WCD due to myocarditis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The mean age was 51.6±16.3 years, with 74% being male. Patients were discharged after index hospitalization on heart failure medication: Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (62.5%), angiotensin‐receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (22.9%), aldosterone‐antagonists (51%), or beta blockers (91.4%). The initial median left ventricular ejection fraction was 30% (22%–45%) and increased to 48% (39%–55%) over long‐term follow‐up (P

Abstract Patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) may benefit from wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) by avoiding immediate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Different factors play an important role including patient selection, compliance and optimal drug treatment. We aimed to present real world data from 4 centers from Germany and Switzerland. Between 04/2012 and 03/2019, 708 patients were included in this registry. Patients were followed up over a mean time of 28 ± 35.5 months. Outcome data including gender differences and different etiologies of cardiomyopathy were analyzed. Out of 708 patients (81.8% males, mean age 61.0 ± 14.6), 44.6% of patients had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 39.8% ischemic cardiomyopathy, 7.9% myocarditis, 5.4% prior need for ICD explantation and 2.1% channelopathy. The mean wear time of WCD was 21.2 ± 4.3 h per day. In 46% of patients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was > 35% during follow-up. The younger the patient was, the higher the LVEF and the lower the wear hours per day were. The total shock rate during follow-up was 2.7%. Whereas an appropriate WCD shock was documented in 16 patients (2.2%), 3 patients received an inappropriate ICD shock (0.5%). During follow-up, implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device was carried out in 34.5% of patients. When comparing German patients (n = 516) to Swiss patients (n = 192), Swiss patients presented with longer wear days (70.72 ± 49.47 days versus 58.06 ± 40.45 days; p = 0.001) and a higher ICD implantation rate compared to German patients (48.4% versus 29.3%; p = 0.001), although LVEF at follow-up was similar between both groups. Young age is a negative independent predictor for the compliance in this large registry. The most common indication for WCD was non-ischemic cardiomyopathy followed by ischemic cardiomyopathy. The compliance rate was generally high with a decrease of wear hours per day at younger age. Slight differences were found between Swiss and German patients, which might be related to differences in mentality for ICD implantation.

BackgroundBrugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, the presence of electrical strom (ES) and its management still debated.ObjectivesWe present the outcome and management of 44 BrS patients suffering from ES.MethodsA systematic literature review and pooled analysis Through database review including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Libary and Cinahl studies were analyzed. Evidence from 7 reports of 808 BrS patients was identified.ResultsThe mean age of patients suffering from ES was 34 ± 9.5 months (94.7% males, 65.8% spontaneous BrS type I). Using electrophysiological study ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation were inducible in 12/23 (52.2%). Recurrence of ES was documented in 6.1%. Death from ES was 8.2% after a follow-up of 83.5 ± 53.4. In up to 27 ES resolved without treatment. External shock was required in 35.6%, internal ICD shock in 13.3%, Overdrive pacing, left cardiac sympathetic block and atropin in 2.2%. Short-term antiarrhythmic management was as the following: Isopreterenol or Isopreterenol in combination with quinidine 35.5%, orciprenaline in 2.2%, quinidine 2.2%, disopyramide 2.2% or denopamide 2.2%. However, lidocaine, magensium sulfate, mexiletine and propanolol failed to control ES.ConclusionAlthough ES is rare in BrS, this entity challenges physicians. Despite its high mortality rate, spontaneous termination is possible. Short-term management using Isoproterenol and/or quinidine might be safe. Prospective studies on management of ES are warranted.