Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Appropriate use of wearable defibrillators with multiparametric evaluation to avoid unnecessary defibrillator
Andrea Matteucci1,2, Carlo Pignalberi3, Stefania Di Fusco3
1Clinical and Rehabilitation Cardiology Division, San Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy andrea.matteucci2@gmail.com.
Introduction:
Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCD) have emerged as a valuable tool in the management of patients at risk for life-threatening arrhythmias. These devices offer a non-invasive and temporary solution, providing continuous monitoring and the potential for prompt defibrillation when needed. In this study, we explore the use of WCD and evaluate arrhythmic events through comprehensive monitoring.
Methods:
From November 2022 to May 2024, we conducted an outpatient follow-up of 41 patients receiving WCD. Regular check-ups, remote monitoring and comprehensive echocardiography were performed to optimise a tailored therapy.
Results:
The average age of the patients was 59.2.4±16.5 years, with 78% being male. Among the cohort, 54% had hypertension, 41% were smokers and 66% had dyslipidaemia, while 27% were diabetic. WCD was assigned according to the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists position paper focussing on the appropriate use of WCD and European Society of Cardiology guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: 24 (58%) patients had a de novo diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, 11 (27%) patients had a recent acute coronary syndrome and ejection fraction <35%, 3 (7%) patients had a cardiac electronic device extraction and 3 (7%) patients had myocarditis with features of electrical instability. The average follow-up was 62±38 days according to specific aetiology, with a daily wearing time of 22.7±1.3 hours. No device interventions were recorded. At the end of the follow-up period, 15 patients still required an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Among these, 12 patients (29%) underwent ICD implantation. Two patients (5%) declined the procedure.
Conclusions:
The use of WCD for patients at high risk of arrhythmias allowed to optimise therapy and limit the indications for ICD. Inappropriate implantation of ICD was avoided in 69% of patients who received WCD. The device showed a good safety profile, low incidence of device interventions and adequate patients' adherence to WCD use.
