Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri



Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Clinical Practice Implementation of the ANMCO Position Paper For Appropriate Use Of The Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator

MATTEUCCI ANDREA ROMA(RM) – P.O. SAN FILIPPO NERI – ASL ROMA 1 | Alonzo Alessandro Roma(RM) – San Filippo Neri Hospital | Castello Lorenzo Roma(RM) – San Filippo neri Hospital

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 indications for WCD and evaluate arrhythmic events through comprehensive monitoring.

Methods: From November 2022 to December 2023, we conducted an outpatient follow-up of 18 patients receiving WCD. Regular check-ups and comprehensive echocardiography were performed to optimize therapy based on specific indications for each patient.

Results: The average age of the patients was 59.3±17.4 years, with 79% being male. Among the cohort, 58% had hypertension, and a similar percentage comprised smokers and individuals with dyslipidemia, while 32% were diabetic. The indications for receiving WCD were: de novo diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction in 9 (50%) patients, recent acute coronary syndrome and ejection fraction < 35% in 5 (28%), cardiac electronic device infections in 3 (17%) patients and myocarditis with electrical instability in 1 (5%) patient. Patients were in optimal medical therapy (OMT) tailored to their specific comorbidities, with 84% on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, 95% on beta-blockers, 53% on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 53% on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and 37% on antiarrhythmics. The average follow-up was 64±45 days according to specific etiology, with a daily wearing time of 22.9±1.1 hours. No device interventions were recorded. At the end of the follow-up period, 6 (33%) patients still required implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Among these, 4 patients (22%) underwent to ICD implantation, 3 for secondary prevention, and 1 for primary prevention, while notably, 2 (11%) patients, declined the procedure. Conclusions: The use of wearable cardioverter-defibrillators in the outpatient setting for patients at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias allowed to optimize therapy and restrict the indications for ICD, in our cohort up to 67%, with a good safety profile due to the low incidence of device interventions.