Prevention of Early Sudden Cardiac Death after Myocardial Infarction Using the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator-Results from a Real-World Cohort.
acute myocardial infarction
implantable cardioverter defibrillator
sudden cardiac death
ventricular fibrillation
ventricular tachycardia
wearable cardioverter defibrillator
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2023
31 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
12
07
2023
revised:
25
07
2023
accepted:
28
07
2023
medline:
12
8
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are at risk of sudden cardiac death. The VEST trial failed to show a reduction in arrhythmic mortality in AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed with a WCD, having a lower-than-expected WCD wearing compliance. The aim was to investigate on outcomes of patients in a real-world Austrian cohort with good compliance. A retrospective analysis of all eligible Austrian WCD patients according to the VEST trial inclusion and exclusion criteria between 2010 and 2020 was performed. In total, 105 Austrian patients (64 ± 11 years, 12% female; LVEF 28 ± 6%) received a WCD for a median of 69 (1; 277) days after AMI (wearing duration 23.5 (0; 24) hours/day). Within the first 90 days, 4/105 (3.8%) patients received 9 appropriate shocks (2 (1; 5) shocks). No inappropriate shocks were delivered, and 3/105 (2.9%) patients died during follow-up. Arrhythmic mortality (1.9% Austria vs. 1.6% VEST, The WCD is a safe treatment option in a highly selected cohort of patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after AMI. However, despite excellent WCD wearing duration in our cohort, the arrhythmic mortality rate was not significantly different.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are at risk of sudden cardiac death. The VEST trial failed to show a reduction in arrhythmic mortality in AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed with a WCD, having a lower-than-expected WCD wearing compliance.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to investigate on outcomes of patients in a real-world Austrian cohort with good compliance.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of all eligible Austrian WCD patients according to the VEST trial inclusion and exclusion criteria between 2010 and 2020 was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 105 Austrian patients (64 ± 11 years, 12% female; LVEF 28 ± 6%) received a WCD for a median of 69 (1; 277) days after AMI (wearing duration 23.5 (0; 24) hours/day). Within the first 90 days, 4/105 (3.8%) patients received 9 appropriate shocks (2 (1; 5) shocks). No inappropriate shocks were delivered, and 3/105 (2.9%) patients died during follow-up. Arrhythmic mortality (1.9% Austria vs. 1.6% VEST,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The WCD is a safe treatment option in a highly selected cohort of patients with LVEF ≤ 35% after AMI. However, despite excellent WCD wearing duration in our cohort, the arrhythmic mortality rate was not significantly different.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37568431
pii: jcm12155029
doi: 10.3390/jcm12155029
pmc: PMC10419414
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Clin Res Cardiol. 2022 Nov;111(11):1189-1197
pubmed: 35305126
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Nov 19;62(21):2000-2007
pubmed: 23916930
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Mar;18(3):404-410
pubmed: 33248269
N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct 8;361(15):1427-36
pubmed: 19812399
Eur Heart J. 2014 Jan;35(2):106-15
pubmed: 24179073
Clin Res Cardiol. 2017 Apr;106(4):300-306
pubmed: 27888304
Cardiol Res. 2022 Aug;13(4):185-189
pubmed: 36128416
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2023 Mar 28;45:101189
pubmed: 37025482
Heart Rhythm O2. 2020 Jul 14;1(3):230-233
pubmed: 34113876
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Feb;27(2):192-9
pubmed: 26501695
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019 Jan;18(1):75-83
pubmed: 30064269
N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 27;379(13):1205-1215
pubmed: 30280654
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Sep;6(9):1187-1188
pubmed: 32972557
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jul 13;56(3):194-203
pubmed: 20620738
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;5(2):152-161
pubmed: 30784684
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 1;37(1):24-34
pubmed: 26530104
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Feb;4(2):231-239
pubmed: 29749943
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):877-83
pubmed: 11907286
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017 Jul;28(7):778-784
pubmed: 28429542
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2017 Dec;70(12):1082
pubmed: 29198432
Eur Heart J. 2021 Sep 21;42(36):3599-3726
pubmed: 34447992
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005 Dec;16(12):1265-70
pubmed: 16403053
Circulation. 2015 Oct 27;132(17):1613-9
pubmed: 26316618
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 May;31(5):1009-1018
pubmed: 32083365
CJC Open. 2019 Jun 07;1(4):161-167
pubmed: 32159102
Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Aug;27(8):984-988
pubmed: 28969980
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 9;351(24):2481-8
pubmed: 15590950
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2022 Jan;37(1):53-59
pubmed: 34195951
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 23;352(25):2581-8
pubmed: 15972864
Eur Heart J. 2022 Oct 21;43(40):3997-4126
pubmed: 36017572