Benefit of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator for detection and therapy of arrhythmias in patients with myocarditis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Myocarditis may lead to malignant arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. As of today, there are no reliable predictors to identify individuals at risk for these catastrophic events. The aim of this study was to evaluate if a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) may detect and treat such arrhythmias adequately in the peracute setting of myocarditis.Methods and results
In this observational, retrospective, single centre study, we reviewed patients presenting to the Charité Hospital from 2009 to 2017, who were provided with a WCD for the diagnosis of myocarditis with reduced ejection fraction (<50%) and/or arrhythmias. Amongst 259 patients receiving a WCD, 59 patients (23%) were diagnosed with myocarditis by histology. The mean age was 46 ± 14 years, and 11 patients were women (19%). The mean WCD wearing time was 86 ± 63 days, and the mean daily use was 20 ± 5 h. During that time, two patients (3%) had episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT; four total) corresponding to a rate of 28 sustained VT episodes per 100 patient-years. Consequently, one of these patients underwent rhythm stabilization through intravenous amiodarone, while the other patient received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Two patients (3.4%) were found to have non-sustained VT.Conclusions
Using a WCD after acute myocarditis led to the detection of sustained VT in 2/59 patients (3%). While a WCD may prevent sudden cardiac death after myocarditis, our data suggest that WCD may have impact on clinical management through monitoring and arrhythmia detection.
SUBMITTER: Tscholl V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318510 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCD, LifeVest, ZOLL) can protect from sudden cardiac death bridging a vulnerable period until a decision on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation can be reached. WCD is commonly used for 3 months or less. It is unknown, which patients use WCD longer and which patients are most likely to benefit from it. Hypothesis:Extended use of WCD is reasonable in selected cases based on underlying heart disease and overall patient risk profile. Methods:We conducted a systematic and comprehensive research of all published clinical studies on PubMed reporting on the use of the WCD. Only original articles reporting on wear times and time to appropriate shocks were included in our analysis. Results:The search resulted in 127 publications. 14 parameters were reported necessary for inclusion in our analysis. Median wear times ranged from 16 to 394 days. The median wear time was especially long for patients suffering from nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (range: 50-71 days) and specifically peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) (120 days) and for heart transplant candidates. There was a large variation of appropriate shocks according to indication for WCD use. In contrast to NICM in general, the number of appropriate shocks was particularly high in patients with PPCM (0 in 254 patients and 5 in 49 patients, respectively). The median and maximal time periods to the first appropriate shock were longest in patients with PPCM (median time to the first appropriate shock: 68 days). Conclusions:Prolonged use of WCD is not uncommon in available literature. Patients suffering from NICM and specifically PPCM seem most likely to have longer therapy duration with WCD with success. Careful patient selection for prolonged use may decrease the need for ICD implantation in the future; however, prospective data are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
| S-EPMC6304887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is a life saving, wearable, noninvasive therapeutic device that prevents fatal ventricular arrhythmic propagation that leads to sudden cardiac death (SCD). WCD are frequently prescribed to patients deemed to be at high arrhythmic risk but the underlying pathology is potentially reversible or to those who are awaiting an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. WCD is programmed to detect appropriate arrhythmic events and generate high energy shock capable of depolarizing the myocardium and thus re-initiating the sinus rhythm. WCD guidelines dictate very high reliability and accuracy to deliver timely and optimal therapy. Computational model-based process validation can verify device performance and benchmark the device setting to suit personalized requirements. In this article, we present a computational pipeline for WCD validation, both in terms of shock classification and shock optimization. For classification, we propose a convolutional neural network-"Long Short Term Memory network (LSTM) full form" (Convolutional neural network- Long short term memory network (CNN-LSTM)) based deep neural architecture for classifying shockable rhythms like Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) vs. other kinds of non-shockable rhythms. The proposed architecture has been evaluated on two open access ECG databases and the classification accuracy achieved is in adherence to American Heart Association standards for WCD. The computational model developed to study optimal electrotherapy response is an in-silico cardiac model integrating cardiac hemodynamics functionality and a 3D volume conductor model encompassing biophysical simulation to compute the effect of shock voltage on myocardial potential distribution. Defibrillation efficacy is simulated for different shocking electrode configurations to assess the best defibrillator outcome with minimal myocardial damage. While the biophysical simulation provides the field distribution through Finite Element Modeling during defibrillation, the hemodynamic module captures the changes in left ventricle functionality during an arrhythmic event. The developed computational model, apart from acting as a device validation test-bed, can also be used for the design and development of personalized WCD vests depending on subject-specific anatomy and pathology.
| S-EPMC8703044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is effective to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients with heart disease known to be at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Nevertheless, this invasive and definitive therapy is not indicated in patients with potentially transient or reversible causes of sudden death, or in patients with temporary contra-indication for ICD placement. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is increasingly used for SCD prevention both in patients awaiting ICD implantation or with an estimated high risk of ventricular arrhythmia though to be transient. We conducted a review of current clinical uses and benefits of the WCD, and described its technical aspects, limitations and perspectives.
| S-EPMC5491470 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the high rate of sudden death after myocardial infarction among patients with a low ejection fraction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are contraindicated until 40 to 90 days after myocardial infarction. Whether a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator would reduce the incidence of sudden death during this high-risk period is unclear. METHODS:We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with acute myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator plus guideline-directed therapy (the device group) or to receive only guideline-directed therapy (the control group). The primary outcome was the composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachyarrhythmia at 90 days (arrhythmic death). Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and nonarrhythmic death. RESULTS:Of 2302 participants, 1524 were randomly assigned to the device group and 778 to the control group. Participants in the device group wore the device for a median of 18.0 hours per day (interquartile range, 3.8 to 22.7). Arrhythmic death occurred in 1.6% of the participants in the device group and in 2.4% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.21; P=0.18). Death from any cause occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the device group and in 4.9% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98; uncorrected P=0.04), and nonarrhythmic death in 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively (relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.19; uncorrected P=0.15). Of the 48 participants in the device group who died, 12 were wearing the device at the time of death. A total of 20 participants in the device group (1.3%) received an appropriate shock, and 9 (0.6%) received an inappropriate shock. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator did not lead to a significantly lower rate of the primary outcome of arrhythmic death than control. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Zoll Medical; VEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01446965 .).
| S-EPMC6276371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is a temporary treatment option for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) and for patients who are temporarily not candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In addition, the need for telemedical concepts in the detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) and its arrhythmias is growing. The WCD has evolved from a shock device detecting malignant ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and treating them with shocks to a heart-failure-monitoring device that captures physical activity and cardioacoustic biomarkers as surrogate parameters for HF to help the treating physician surveil and guide the HF therapy of each individual patient. In addition to its important role in preventing SCD, the WCD could become an important tool in heart failure treatment by helping prevent HF events by detecting imminent decompensation via remote monitoring and monitoring therapy success.
| S-EPMC8747379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:After the success story of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator systems, prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains one of the main duties in cardiology. For patients with unkown or transient risk profile for SCD, a wearable cardioverter/defibrillator (WCD) has been established for temporary and effective prevention of sudden arrhythmic death. Several studies have shown safety and efficacy of the WCD, even though randomized studies proving a mortality benefit are still lacking. This review provides an overview of actual WCD data and usage, special indications and possible risks and complications. WCD use is effective and adequate for temporary prevention of SCD in chosen populations. In particular, it provides secured time for sophisticated risk stratification to identify patients at persistent risk for SCD. Nevertheless, prospective randomized trials seem mandatory to prove a prognostic relevance and the economic value of this device.
| S-EPMC5089470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPregnancy can trigger or aggravate the risk for life-threating arrhythmias in cardiac diseases. Pregnancy is associated with reluctance for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) due to concerns about radiation. Thus, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) might be an option during pregnancy. Aim of the study was to collect experiences about the use of WCD in pregnancy.Methods and resultsThis study retrospectively included eight women who received a WCD during pregnancy. They suffered from ventricular tachycardia (VT) without known cardiac disease (n = 3), Brugada syndrome (n = 1), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 1), non-compaction (n = 1), and survived sudden cardiac arrest during a preceding pregnancy (n = 1). WCD usage was started between 13 and 28 weeks of gestation. WCD wearing period ranged from 3 days to 30.9 weeks, WCD wearing time ranged from 13.0 to 23.7 h per day. Two women (25%) abandoned WCD already during pregnancy. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate WCD shocks were recorded. Antiarrhythmic management included beta-blockers (n = 5) and flecainide (n = 2). After delivery, ICD were implanted (n = 4), refused (n = 2) and estimated not necessary after successful catheter ablation (n = 2).ConclusionUneventful pregnancy is possible in women at risk for sudden cardiac death by interdisciplinary monitoring and diligent pharmacotherapy protected by the WCD. Since no WCD shocks were recorded, the effectiveness of WCD during pregnancy is still unclear. However, arrhythmia detection by WCD was very good despite the changed anatomy in pregnancy. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary to assess effectiveness of WCD in pregnant women. Furthermore, efforts should be made to increase the wearing adherence of WCD during pregnancy.
| S-EPMC9168609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with myocardial injury and higher risk of arrhythmic complications. However, no reports are available about the effect of the ongoing pandemic on arrhythmias in patients at risk.ObjectiveTo describe the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on arrhythmic burden among high-risk patients.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) during the pandemic outbreak (study period), compared to the same timeframe in 2019 (reference period). Inclusion criteria were age (>18 years) and having an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD).ResultsAmong 455 patients enrolled (mean age 64.9 ± 15.7 years; 25.1% females and 39.6% with CRTD), in the study period, 45 (9.9%) patients experienced a total of 86 VA; 8 patients (1.7%) required antitachycardia-pacing (ATP) and 6 (1.3%) at least one shock. In the reference period, a total of 69 events occurred in 36 patients (7.9%). Six patients (1.3%) required ATP and three (0.7%) at least one shock. The number of patients that suffered from any arrhythmic events in the study period (9.9% vs 7.9%) did not significantly differ from the reference period (χ2 = 1.09, P = .29). The main predictor of VA during the COVID-19 pandemic was the previous history of any ICD therapy (OR = 3.84, P < .001).ConclusionsNo evidence of an increase of arrhythmic burden was found during the COVID-19 pandemic among patients with an ICD.
| S-EPMC8014654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in elderly patients has been questioned. In the present study, we aimed to analyse the outcome of patients of different age groups with ICD implantation.MethodsWe included all patients who received an ICD in our hospital from 2011 to 2020. Primary endpoints were (1) death from any cause and (2) appropriate ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing/shock). A "benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as appropriate ICD therapy before death from any cause/or survival. "No benefit of ICD implantation" was defined as death from any cause without prior appropriate ICD therapy.ResultsA total of 422 patients received an ICD (primary prophylaxis n = 323, secondary prophylaxis n = 99). At the time of implantation, 35 patients (8%) were >80 years and 106 patients were >75 years (25%). During the study period of 4.2 ± 3 years, benefit of ICD occurred in 89 patients (21%) and no benefit in 84 patients (20%). In primary prevention, the proportion of patients who had a benefit from ICD implantation decreased with increasing age, and there were no patients who benefited from ICD therapy in the group of patients >80 years. In secondary prophylaxis, the proportion of patients with a benefit from ICD implantation ranged from 20% to 30% in all age groups.ConclusionOur study suggests that the indication of primary prophylactic ICD in elderly and very old patients should be critically assessed. On the other hand, no patient should be denied secondary prophylactic ICD implantation because of age.
| S-EPMC10826786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not uniform due to differences in the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) and non-arrhythmic mortality. We aimed to develop an ICD benefit prediction score that integrates the competing risks.Methods and resultsThe study population comprised all 4531 patients enrolled in the MADIT trials. Best-subsets Fine and Gray regression analysis was used to develop prognostic models for VT (≥200 b.p.m.)/VF vs. non-arrhythmic mortality (defined as death without prior sustained VT/VF). Eight predictors of VT/VF (male, age < 75 years, prior non-sustained VT, heart rate > 75 b.p.m., systolic blood pressure < 140 mmHg, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, myocardial infarction, and atrialarrhythmia) and 7 predictors of non-arrhythmic mortality (age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, body mass index < 23 kg/m2, ejection fraction ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association ≥II, ICD vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, and atrial arrhythmia) were identified. The two scores were combined to create three MADIT-ICD benefit groups. In the highest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was three-fold higher than the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (20% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). In the intermediate benefit group, the difference in the corresponding predicted risks was attenuated (15% vs. 9%, P < 0.01). In the lowest benefit group, the 3-year predicted risk of VT/VF was similar to the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality (11% vs. 12%, P = 0.41). A personalized ICD benefit score was developed based on the distribution of the two competing risks scores in the study population (https://is.gd/madit). Internal and external validation confirmed model stability.ConclusionsWe propose the novel MADIT-ICD benefit score that predicts the likelihood of prophylactic ICD benefit through personalized assessment of the risk of VT/VF weighed against the risk of non-arrhythmic mortality.
| S-EPMC8088341 | biostudies-literature