Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Background Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are prone to electromagnetic interference. Common sources include household electronics and industrial machinery. However, medical equipment can also trigger interferences and cause CIED malfunction. Case summary We report on a 79-year-old male with sudden onset of presyncope. He has a long history of device therapy, including an active VVI leadless pacemaker and an abandoned abdominal pacemaker with epicardial leads. Automatic reactivation of the abandoned pacemaker due to reaching end-of-life mode led to interaction with the active pacemaker, inhibiting it in its function. Due to elevated capture threshold and insufficient output, pacing by the reactivated pacemaker was accompanied by intermittent loss of myocardial capture and patient symptoms. By changing the mode to VOO and increasing the pacing rate of the active pacemaker, the interaction was prevented as an intermittent solution. The final therapy consisted of explanting the pulse generator of the abdominal pacemaker. Discussion We present a patient with a deactivated abandoned cardiac pacemaker, which self-activated after reaching end-of-life mode and triggered an interaction with his active pacemaker. This case emphasizes the importance of explanting old devices to avoid potential interaction.

The wearable cardioverter–defibrillator (WCD) is used in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition to arrhythmic events, the WCD provides near-continuous telemetric heart failure monitoring. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of additionally recorded parameters, such as heart rate or step count. We included patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF prescribed with a WCD. Via the WCD, step count and heart rate were acquired, and an approximate for heart rate variability (HRV5) was calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze predictors for an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Two hundred and seventy-six patients (31.9% female) were included. Mean LVEF was 25.3 ± 8.5%. Between the first and last seven days of usage, median heart rate fell significantly (p < 0.001), while median step count and HRV5 significantly increased (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, a delta of HRV5 > 23 ms was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement of ≥10% between prescription and 3-month follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF showed significant changes in heart rate, step count, and HRV5 between the beginning and end of WCD prescription time. HRV5 was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement and could serve as an early indicator of treatment response.

The number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted in patients with end-stage heart failure is increasing. In this patient cohort, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) could be a promising alternative to transvenous ICDs due to lower infection rates and avoidance of venous access. However, eligibility for the S-ICD depends on ECG features that may be influenced by an LVAD. The aim of the present study was a prospective evaluation of S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation. The study recruited all patients presenting at Hannover Medical School for LVAD implantation between 2016 and 2020. S-ICD eligibility was evaluated using the ECG-based and the device-based S-ICD screening test before and after LVAD implantation. Twenty-two patients (57.3 ± 8.7 years of age, 95.5% male) were included in the analysis. The most common underlying diseases were dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 16, 72.7%) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 5, 22.7%). Before LVAD implantation 16 patients were found eligible for the S-ICD according to both screening tests (72.7%), but only 7 patients were eligible after LVAD, 31.8%; p = 0.05). Oversensing due to electromagnetic interference was observed in 6 patients (66.6%) found ineligible for S-ICD after LVAD implantation. A lower S wave amplitude in leads I (p = 0.009), II (p = 0.006) and aVF (p = 0.006) before LVAD implantation was associated with higher rate of S-ICD ineligibility after LVAD implantation. LVAD implantation can impair S-ICD eligibility. Patients with lower S wave amplitude in leads I, II and aVF were more likely to be ineligible for S-ICD implantation after LVAD implantation. Thus, S-ICD therapy should be carefully considered in patients who are candidates for LVAD therapy.

In patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), three months of optimal therapy are recommended before considering a primary preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). It is unclear which patients benefit from a prolonged waiting period under protection of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) to avoid unnecessary ICD implantations. This study included all patients receiving a WCD for newly diagnosed HFrEF (n = 353) at our center between 2012 and 2017. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. From baseline until three months, LVEF improved in patients with all peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). Beyond this time, LVEF improved in PPCM and DCM only (10 ± 8% and 10 ± 12%, respectively), whereas patients with ICM showed no further improvement. The patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF were compared to 29 patients with a distinct WCD indication, which is an explantation of an infected ICD. This latter group had a higher incidence of WCD shocks and poorer overall survival. All-cause mortality should be considered when deciding on WCD prescription. In patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF, the potential for delayed LVEF recovery should be considered when timing ICD implantation, especially in patients with PPCM and DCM.

Aims To analyse the predictive value of advanced markers of right ventricular (RV) function and RV‐pulmonary arterial (PA) coupling in forecasting long‐term left ventricular (LV) improvement in de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results 260 patients (mean age 57 years, 68% men) from the PROLONG‐II study were included. PROLONG‐II analysed patients with new‐onset HFrEF receiving a wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator. For this substudy, RV free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWS), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), and right ventricular‐pulmonary artery (RV‐PA) coupling ratios [RVFWS/systolic pulmonary artery pressure (PASP), TAPSE/PASP and FAC/PASP] at baseline and 3‐month follow‐up (early follow‐up) were examined. LV improvement and non‐improvement were defined as an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of >35% or ≤35% at last available (long‐term) follow‐up. The median follow‐up was 31.5 months (IQR: 18.2–45.4), and 151 (58%) patients experienced LV improvement in the long term. No significant differences of RV function and markers of RV‐PA coupling were observed at baseline; however, the subgroup of patients with long‐term LVEF improvement showed better RV function at early follow‐up (RVFWS −20.9 ± 4.3 vs. −18.5 ± 5.1%, TAPSE 19.7 ± 5.1 vs. 17.4 ± 4.9 mm, FAC 39.7 ± 8.5 vs. 35.2 ± 9.4%, all P < 0.01). In multivariable analysis, RVFWS at early follow‐up was shown to be an independent predictor of later LV recovery [odds ratio 1.078 (95% confidence interval 1.010–1.150), P < 0.05]. The non‐improvers exhibited worse RV‐PA coupling at early follow‐up [RVFWS/PASP 0.82 ± 0.35 vs. 0.65 ± 0.35%/mmHg, TAPSE/PASP 0.71 (0.55–1.00) vs. 0.54 (0.35–0.75) mm/mmHg, FAC/PASP 1.54 ± 0.61 vs. 1.24 ± 0.75%/mmHg, all P < 0.01]. RVFWS/PASP identified RV‐PA uncoupling was associated with a higher risk of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio 4.64, 95% confidence interval 1.34–16.09, P = 0.033). Conclusions Persistent RV dysfunction, as indicated by both standard and advanced echocardiographic markers during the early follow‐up period, implies a reduced potential for long‐term LV recovery in patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF.

PurposeThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD.MethodsSeventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients.ResultsFifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result.ConclusionsPatients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population.

Aim The wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator (WCD) is used for temporary protection from sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction before considering an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). However, the prognostic significance of the WCD remains controversial due to conflicting evidence. The aim of the present study was to evaluate prognosis of patients receiving life‐saving WCD shocks. Methods and results All patients receiving a WCD at Hannover Medical School for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction between 2012 and 2017 were included. Data were acquired at baseline, at 3 months and at last available follow‐up (FU). Three hundred and fifty‐three patients were included (69% male; age 56 ± 15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25 ± 8%). FU after the WCD was 2.8 ± 1.5 years with a maximum of 6.8 years. Daily WCD wear time was 22 ± 4 h. Fourteen patients (4%) received appropriate WCD shocks. Two patients (0.6%) died during the WCD period. Thirty patients (9%) died during extended FU. Mean estimated survival after the WCD was similar between patients with and without WCD shocks. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription did not experience SCD during FU. Conclusions Patients with WCD shocks showed a favourable survival. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription had no SCD during FU. These findings support the practice of careful risk stratification before considering an ICD and the use of the WCD for temporary protection from SCD.

Aims Baroreceptor activation therapy (BAT) is a promising new treatment strategy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It provides symptomatic relief, improvement in left ventricular function and reduction of cardiac biomarkers. Data regarding the long‐term effect of BAT on HFrEF are scarce. This retrospective, monocentric study aimed to assess long‐term outcome in patients who underwent BAT. Methods Patients with HFrEF who received BAT at Hannover Medical School between 2014 and 2023 were followed until the latest available follow‐up. Symptom burden, echocardiography and laboratory testing were assessed before BAT implantation and in subsequent follow‐ups. Results Twenty‐three patients (mean age 66 ± 10 years, 83% male) with HFrEF were included in the study. Aetiology of heart failure was ischaemic in 70%. The majority of patients (96%) suffered from New York Heart Association (NYHA) III with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 23 ± 8% and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) of 2463 ± 2922 pg/mL. A complication occurred in one patient during BAT implantation (4%). The mean follow‐up was 3 ± 2 (max. 7.5) years. BAT reduced NYHA classification in 12 patients (52%) after 1 year, of which one patient remained in ameliorated NYHA for 7.5 years. Echocardiographic evaluation revealed significant improvement in LVEF by 9 ± 9% after 1 year (P < 0.001) and by 11 ± 9% (P = 0.005) after 2 years. In addition, BAT mildly reduced NT‐proBNP in the first 2 years [non‐significantly after 1 year by 396 ± 1006 pg/mL and significantly after 2 years by 566 ± 651 pg/mL (P = 0.039)]. Seven patients reaching the recommended replacement time underwent device exchange. Four patients died during observation time. Conclusions BAT resulted in a substantial reduction in NYHA classification and improvement in LVEF that lasted over long‐term follow‐up in many patients. NT‐proBNP level decreased interim in long‐term follow‐up. These findings highlight the long‐term efficacy and potential benefits of BAT as a therapeutic intervention for patients with HFrEF.

Aims Patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) carry an increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) therapy may be challenging in these patients due to anatomical barriers, repeated cardiac surgery, or complicated transvenous access. Thus, the subcutaneous ICD (S‐ICD) can be a promising alternative in this patient population. Patients with ACHD show significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, which could affect S‐ICD sensing because it depends on surface ECG. Methods and results One hundred patients with ACHD were screened for S‐ICD eligibility. Standard ECG‐based screening test and automated S‐ICD screening test were performed in all patients. Sixty‐six patients (66%) were male. Underlying congenital heart disease (CHD) was mainly CHD of great complexity (71%) and moderate complexity (29%), including repaired tetralogy of Fallot (20%), which was the most common entity. Thirty‐seven patients (37%) already had a pacemaker (23%) or ICD (14%) implanted. Automated screening test identified 83 patients (83%) eligible for S‐ICD implantation in either left parasternal position (78%) or right parasternal position (75%). Absence of sinus rhythm, QRS duration, and a paced QRS complex were associated with S‐ICD screening failure in univariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve and multivariate analysis revealed a QRS duration ≥148 ms as the only independent predictor for S‐ICD screening failure. Conclusions Patients with ACHD show satisfactory eligibility rates (83%) for S‐ICD implantation utilizing the automated screening test, including patients with CHD of high complexity. S‐ICD therapy should be considered with caution in ACHD patients with a QRS duration ≥148 ms and/or need for ventricular pacing.