Who Should Receive a Wearable Defibrillator Vest at Hospital Discharge?
- 31 Downloads
Purpose of Review
To discuss the role of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) vests in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in at-risk populations.
The impact of randomized-controlled trials with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) therapy is well established in randomized clinical trials in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Although the benefits are not as clear in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, meta-analyses show significant mortality benefits from immediate electrical cardioversion strategies. The role of WCDs in at-risk populations in whom ICD therapy is temporarily not indicated is not as well-established. Smaller cohort trials have shown efficacy in patients with newly-diagnosed cardiomyopathy, requiring temporary ICD explantation, and others with less common indications for WCD therapy.
The Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial was a landmark randomized control study seeking to examine the benefits of WCD therapy in at-risk population, and although the primary endpoint of reducing arrhythmic death was not reached, the structure of the trial and significant differences in total mortality make a compelling case for continued use of WCD therapies in our healthcare systems.
KeywordsWearable cardioverter-defibrillator Sudden cardiac death Ventricular arrhythmias Ischemic heart disease Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Sergey Kachur has no disclosures.
Daniel P. Morin reports research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific, is a consultant for Abbott, and has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and ZOLL. Also, Dr. Morin served on the steering committee for the VEST trial, and was one of the authors of the main VEST study manuscript (October 2018, N Engl J Med).
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.Cardiac Arrest: An important public health issue [internet]. Centers for Disease Control; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/docs/cardiac-arrest-infographic.pdf
- 4.•• Al-Khatib SM, Stevenson WG, Ackerman MJ, Bryant WJ, Callans DJ, Curtis AB, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: Executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15(10):e190–252 A collection of the most-updated American guidelines on management of patients at-risk for sudden cardiac death. These recommendations precede the results of the VEST trials. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.• Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(12):781–8 Was one of the first trial to establish the lack of efficacy of anti-arrhythmics at preventing arrhythmic death. This trial helped stimulate the search for better alternatives.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, Gent M. Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997;349(9053):675–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.• Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12):877–83 One of the key randomized controlled trials that showed a benefit in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy without testing for inducible arrhythmias. This is one of the cornerstones of the Class Ia ICD recommendation in this patient group. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Cantero-Pérez EM, Sobrino-Márquez JM, Grande-Trillo A, Lage-Gallé E, Rangel-Sousa D, Esteve-Ruiz IM, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction awaiting heart transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013;45(10):3659–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Buxton M, Caine N, Chase D, Connelly D, Grace A, Jackson C, et al. A review of the evidence on the effects and costs of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in different patient groups, and modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility for these groups in a UK context. [Internet]. Southampton, UK: Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO; 2006. (NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme: Executive Summaries.; vol. 10). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62273/
- 23.Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG, Frumin HI, Schuger CD, Beau SL, et al. Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia–AMIOVIRT. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(10):1707–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.•• Golwala H, Bajaj NS, Arora G, Arora P. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for nonischemic cardiomyopathy: an updated meta-analysis. Circulation. 2017;135(2):201–3 A key recent meta-analysis that helps codify the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in the non-ischemic population. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.•• Olgin JE, Pletcher MJ, Vittinghoff E, Wranicz J, Malik R, Morin DP, et al. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(13):1205–15 The VEST trial is the only randomized-controlled clinical trial testing the efficacy of wearable cardioverter-defibrillator devices in at risk patients not eligible for ICD therapy with mortality endpoints. CrossRefGoogle Scholar