Cargando…
Single-center experience with wearable cardioverter-defibrillator as a bridge before definitive ICD implantation
BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) has been approved for patients with poor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are at risk of sudden arrhythmic death for a limited period but are not candidates for a definitive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The prese...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082683/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31857213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2019.12.010 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) has been approved for patients with poor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are at risk of sudden arrhythmic death for a limited period but are not candidates for a definitive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The present study sought to retrospectively analyse our single-centre experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive WCDs applied between April 2017 and September 2018 in our centre were enrolled. An exercise test was performed in all patients in order to evaluate the absence of false detection of ventricular arrhythmias by the device. A total of 16 patients (57.7 ± 14.8 years old; 75% males) were taken into consideration for the analysis. Mean LVEF was 32 ± 11% at diagnosis and 42 ± 10% at last follow-up (mean, 3.1 ± 1.7 months; median, 3 months). At the end of the “wearing period” 11/16 patients (69%) did not have ICD implant indications and only 5 (31%) underwent ICD implantation. Neither appropriate nor appropriate shocks occurred during the follow up. CONCLUSIONS: The WCD represents a useful tool to bridge a temporarily increased risk for sudden cardiac death. The proportion of patients with an improvement of LVEF> 35% beyond the WCD-application period was considerable. |
---|