No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: The 2010 Task Force Criteria (TFC) have not been tested to differentiate ARVC from the athlete’s heart. Moreover, some criteria are not available (myocardial biopsy, genetic testing, morphology of ventricular tachycardia) or subject to interobserver variability (right ventricular regional wall motion abnormalities) in clinical practice. We hypothesized that atrial dimensions are useful and robust to differentiate between both entities and proposed a new diagnostic score based upon readily available parameters including echocardiographic atrial dimensions. Methods: In this observational study, 21 patients with definite ARVC were matched for age, gender and body mass index to 42 athletes. Based on ROC analysis, the following parameters were included in the score: indexed right/left atrial volumes ratio (RAVI/LAVI ratio), NT-proBNP, RVOT measurements (PLAX and PSAX BSA-corrected), tricuspid annular motion (TAM), precordial TWI and depolarization abnormalities according to TFC. Results: ARVC patients had a higher RAVI/LAVI ratio (1.76 ± 1.5 vs. 0.87 ± 0.2, p < 0.001), lower right ventricular function (fac: 29 ± 10.1 vs. 42.2 ± 5%, p < 0.001; TAM: 19.8 ± 5.4 vs. 23.8 ± 3.8 mm, p = 0.001) and higher serum NT-proBNP levels (345 ± 612 vs. 48 ± 57 ng/L, p < 0.001). Our score showed a good performance, which is comparable to the 2010 TFC using those parameters, which are available in routine clinical practice (AUC93%, p < 0.001 (95%CI 0.874–0.995) vs. AUC97%, p < 0.001 (95%CI 0.93–1.00). A score of 6/12 points yielded a specificity of 91% and an improved sensitivity of 67% for ARVC diagnosis as compared to a sensitivity of 41% for the abovementioned readily available 2010 TFC. Conclusions: ARVC patients present with significantly larger RA compared to athletes, resulting in a greater RAVI/LAVI ratio. Our novel diagnostic score includes readily available clinical parameters and has a high diagnostic accuracy to differentiate between ARVC and the athlete’s heart.

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.

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.

Aims: Treatment with the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) may protect against sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a bridging therapy until a cardioverterdefibrillator may be implanted. We analyzed in a multicenter setting a consecutive patient cohort wearing WCD to explore sex differences. Methods and Results:We analyzed 708 consecutive patients, 579 (81.8%) from whom were males and 129 (18.2%) females (age, 60.5 ± 14 vs. 61.6 ± 17 years old; p = .44). While the rate of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) as a cause of prescription of WCD was significantly higher in males as compared to females (42.7% vs. 26.4%; p = .001), females received it more frequently due to nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (55.8% vs. 42.7%); p = .009). The wear time of WCD was equivalent in both groups (21.1 ± 4.3 h/days in males vs. 21.5 ± 4.4 h/days in females; p = .27; and 62.6 ± 44.3 days in males vs. 56.5 ± 39 days in females; p = .15). Mortality was comparable in both groups at 2-year-follow-up (6.8% in males vs. 9.7% in females; p = .55). Appropriate WCD shocks and the incidence of ICD implantations were similar in both groups (2.4% in males vs. 3.9% in females; p = .07) (35.1% in males vs. 31.8% in females; p = .37), respectively. In age tertile analysis, compliance was observed more in 73-91 years old group as compared with 14-51 years old group (87.8% vs. 68.3%; p < .001). Conclusion:Compliance for wearing WCD was excellent regardless of sex. Furthermore, mortality and the incidence of ICD implantations were comparable in both sexes. Appropriate WCD shocks were similar in both sexes.