No abstract

Home monitoring (HM) of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) with its automated wireless remote data access, may decrease the rate of patient visits. This study examined the potential cost savings for the long-term care of ICD assisted by HM. A French database including 502 patients from 6 university hospitals was used. Costs of conventional follow-up (FU) of ICD were calculated without, and compared with the expected cost of FU with HM. Calculations included number of visits, including physician's fees, electrocardiograms, and specific ICD surveillance, and transportation costs. The mean distance between home and institutions performing follow-ups was 69 +/- 57 km. For each visit, a mean overall cost of 215 dollars was calculated, including 121 dollars for transportation and 94 dollars for medical services. HM may obviate up to 2 visits per year. Over the 5 years of expected life of the device, the decrease in costs for FU visits was estimated at 2,149 dollars. With an additional cost of 1,200 dollars for the HM system, saving began after a mean FU of 33.5 months. The time to onset of cost saving by HM ranged between 17.4 months for patients living >150 km from the medical facility to 52.2 months for those living <50 km away. It is concluded that the HM may considerably reduce the overall costs of ICD FU by saving on transportation cost, particularly when the distance between home and medical facility is >100 km.

Aims  We aimed to provide contemporary real-world data on wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) use, not only in terms of effectiveness and safety but also compliance and acceptability. Methods and results  Across 88 French centres, the WEARIT-France study enrolled retrospectively patients who used the WCD between May 2014 and December 2016, and prospectively all patients equipped for WCD therapy between January 2017 and March 2018. All patients received systematic education session through a standardized programme across France at the time of initiation of WCD therapy and were systematically enrolled in the LifeVest Network remote services. Overall, 1157 patients were included (mean age 60 ± 12 years, 16% women; 46% prospectively): 82.1% with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 10.3% after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator explant, and 7.6% before heart transplantation. Median WCD usage period was 62 (37–97) days. Median daily wear time of WCD was 23.4 (22.2–23.8) h. In multivariate analysis, younger age was associated with lower compliance [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–0.99, P &lt; 0.01]. A total of 18 participants (1.6%) received at least one appropriate shock, giving an incidence of appropriate therapy of 7.2 per 100 patient-years. Patient-response button allowed the shock to be aborted in 35.7% of well-tolerated sustained ventricular arrhythmias and in 95.4% of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia detection, finally resulting in an inappropriate therapy in eight patients (0.7%). Conclusion Our real-life findings reinforce previous studies on the efficacy and safety of the WCD in the setting of transient high-risk group in selected patients. Moreover, they emphasize the fact that when prescribed appropriately, in concert with adequate patient education and dedicated follow-up using specific remote monitoring system, compliance with WCD is high and the device well-tolerated by the patient.

Our data suggest that in STEMI patients with patent IRA, optimal ST-segment resolution, and thrombus-containing lesion, deferred PCI when patients are given dual antiplatelet therapy, antithrombin agents, and GPIIb-IIIa inhibitors results in a higher procedural success rate, without an increased risk of MACE.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.