AimsThe HomeGuide Registry was a prospective study (NCT01459874), implementing a model for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in daily clinical practice, to estimate effectiveness in major cardiovascular event detection and management.Methods and resultsThe workflow for remote monitoring [Biotronik Home Monitoring (HM)] was based on primary nursing: each patient was assigned to an expert nurse for management and to a responsible physician for medical decisions. In-person visits were scheduled once a year. Seventy-five Italian sites enrolled 1650 patients [27% pacemakers, 27% single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), 22% dual-chamber ICDs, 24% ICDs with cardiac resynchronization therapy]. Population resembled the expected characteristics of CIED patients. During a 20 ± 13 month follow-up, 2471 independently adjudicated events were collected in 838 patients (51%): 2033 (82%) were detected during HM sessions; 438 (18%) during in-person visits. Sixty were classified as false-positive, with generalized estimating equation-adjusted sensitivity and positive predictive value of 84.3% [confidence interval (CI), 82.5–86.0%] and 97.4% (CI, 96.5–98.2%), respectively. Overall, 95% of asymptomatic and 73% of actionable events were detected during HM sessions. Median reaction time was 3 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1–14 days]. Generalized estimating equation-adjusted incremental utility, calculated according to four properties of major clinical interest, was in favour of the HM sessions: +0.56 (CI, 0.53–0.58%), P < 0.0001. Resource consumption: 3364 HM sessions performed (76% by nurses), median committed monthly manpower of 55.5 (IQR, 22.0–107.0) min × health personnel/100 patients.ConclusionHome Monitoring was highly effective in detecting and managing clinical events in CIED patients in daily practice with remarkably low manpower and resource consumption.

A high level of acceptance and satisfaction after 1-year remote control by HM was detected by the five-point scale HoMASQ, which showed a good internal reliability.

Aim The benefit of cardiac pacing in patients with severe recurrent reflex syncope and asystole induced by tilt testing has not been established. The usefulness of tilt-table test to select candidates for cardiac pacing is controversial. Methods and results We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years or older who had at least two episodes of unpredictable severe reflex syncope during the last year and a tilt-induced syncope with an asystolic pause longer than 3 s, to receive either an active (pacing ON; 63 patients) or an inactive (pacing OFF; 64 patients) dual-chamber pacemaker with closed loop stimulation (CLS). The primary endpoint was the time to first recurrence of syncope. Patients and independent outcome assessors were blinded to the assigned treatment. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months, syncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group than in the control group [10 (16%) vs. 34 (53%); hazard ratio, 0.23; P = 0.00005]. The estimated syncope recurrence rate at 1 year was 19% (pacing) and 53% (control) and at 2 years, 22% (pacing) and 68% (control). A combined endpoint of syncope or presyncope occurred in significantly fewer patients in the pacing group [23 (37%) vs. 40 (63%); hazard ratio, 0.44; P = 0.002]. Minor device-related adverse events were reported in five patients (4%). Conclusion In patients aged 40 years or older, affected by severe recurrent reflex syncope and tilt-induced asystole, dual-chamber pacemaker with CLS is highly effective in reducing the recurrences of syncope. Our findings support the inclusion of tilt testing as a useful method to select candidates for cardiac pacing. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02324920, Eudamed number CIV-05-013546.

Background: Optimal timing for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is an important unresolved issue. There are no randomized trials evaluating the benefit of ablation after the first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock. Methods: We conducted a 2-phase, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients with ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and primary or secondary prevention indication for ICD were enrolled in an initial observational phase until first appropriate shock (phase A). After reconsenting, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in phase B to immediate ablation (within 2 months from shock delivery) or continuation of standard therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Amiodarone intake was not allowed except for documented atrial tachyarrhythmias. On July 23, 2021, phase B of the trial was interrupted as a result of the first interim analysis on the basis of the Bayesian adaptive design. Results: Of the 517 patients enrolled in phase A, 154 (30%) had ventricular tachycardia, 56 (11%) received an appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range, 1.4-4.4), and 47 of 56 (84%) agreed to participate in phase B. After 24.2 (8.5-24.4) months, the primary end point occurred in 1 of 23 (4%) patients in the ablation group and 10 of 24 (42%) patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01-0.85]; P=0.034). The results met the prespecified termination criterion of >99% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of treatment over standard therapy. No deaths were observed in the ablation group versus 8 deaths (33%) in the control group (P=0.004); there was 1 worsening heart failure hospitalization in the ablation group (4%) versus 4 in the control group (17%; P=0.159). ICD shocks were less frequent in the ablation group (9%) than in the control group (42%; P=0.039). Conclusions: Ventricular tachycardia ablation after first appropriate shock was associated with a reduced risk of the combined death or worsening heart failure hospitalization end point, lower mortality, and fewer ICD shocks. These findings provide support for considering ventricular tachycardia ablation after the first ICD shock.

HM implemented in the HomeGuide workflow model required <1 hour/month every 100 patients to detect the majority of actionable events with limited administrative workload.