Wearable defibrillator to improve accuracy in selecting candidates to implantable defibrillator: A real-world experience

Abstract

Aims: The indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention relies mostly on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. The use of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) in the case of dynamic alterations of LVEF may help avoid an improper early ICD implant when a favourable evolution in the post-acute phase is observed and may help reduce costs.

Methods: This parallel cohort retrospective study included patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) at high risk of arrhythmias recruited in the acute phase and divided into an early ICD cohort and a WCD cohort for primary prevention during the waiting period established by European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Results: A total of 41 consecutive patients were enrolled: 26 in the WCD group and 15 in the early ICD group. Age, LVEF at baseline, causes of HFrEF and drug therapy in the two cohorts were similar. During the waiting period after the inclusion, three patients (11.5%) in the WCD cohort and four (26.7%) in the early ICD cohort developed relevant ventricular arrhythmias (P = 0.22); none of them had subsequent LVEF recovery. At the end of the waiting period, 13 patients (50%) in the WCD group and 7 (46.7%) in the early ICD group experienced LVEF recovery (P = 0.84). The average cost per patient at the end of the waiting period was €23 934 in the early ICD cohort versus €19 167 in the WCD cohort (-19.9%). This cost savings from WCD use appears even higher when projected over a 10 year period (-41.2%).

Conclusions: WCD may represent a cost-effective strategy to more accurately select candidates for the primary prevention ICD implant among high-risk patients with HFrEF. ICD use provides effective protection from SCD and reduces costs compared with an extensive early ICD implant.

Keywords: arrhythmias; heart failure; sudden death; wearable electronic devices.

Figure 1

Cost assessment in the two different patient groups. The estimated cost savings using wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) was −19.9% at the end of the waiting period and −41.2% at 10 year follow‐up. EF, ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator.