Search

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Decades of grassroots campaigns have helped to raise awareness about the impact of cardiovascular disease in women, and positive changes affecting women and their health have gained momentum. Despite these efforts, there has been stagnation in the overall reduction of cardiovascular disease burden for women in the past decade. Cardiovascular disease in women remains understudied, under-recognised, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. This Commission summarises existing evidence and identifies knowledge gaps in research, prevention, treatment, and access to care for women. Recommendations from an international team of experts and leaders in the field have been generated with a clear focus to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular disease in women by 2030. This Commission represents the first effort of its kind to connect stakeholders, to ignite global awareness of sex-related and gender-related disparities in cardiovascular disease, and to provide a springboard for future research.

Background Observational studies have suggested increased arrhythmic and cardiovascular risk with the combination use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective The arrhythmic safety profile of HCQ monotherapy, which remains under investigation as a therapeutic and prophylactic agent in COVID-19, is less established and we sought to evaluate this. Methods In 245 consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to the University of Washington hospital system between March 9, 2020, and May 10, 2020, we identified 111 treated with HCQ monotherapy. Patients treated with HCQ underwent a systematic arrhythmia and QT interval surveillance protocol including serial electrocardiograms (ECG) (baseline, following second HCQ dose). The primary endpoint was in-hospital sustained ventricular arrhythmia or arrhythmic cardiac arrest. Secondary endpoints included clinically significant QTc prolongation. Results A total of 111 patients with COVID-19 underwent treatment with HCQ monotherapy (mean age 62 ± 16 years, 44 women [39%], serum creatinine 0.9 [interquartile range 0.4] mg/dL). There were no instances of sustained ventricular arrythmia or arrhythmic cardiac arrest. In 75 patients with serial ECGs, clinically significant corrected QT (QTc) prolongation was observed in a minority (n = 5 [7%]). In patients with serial ECGs, there was no significant change in the QTc interval in prespecified subgroups of interest, including those with prevalent cardiovascular disease or baseline use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis inhibitors. Conclusions In the context of a systematic monitoring protocol, HCQ monotherapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was not associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. A minority of patients demonstrated clinically significant QTc prolongation during HCQ therapy.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Current understanding of the impact of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is based on retrospective analyses from medical records or administrative claims data. The WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of CIED infection from the hospital, payer, and patient perspectives in the US healthcare system. Methods: This was a prespecified, as-treated analysis evaluating outcomes related to major CIED infections: mortality, quality of life, disruption of CIED therapy, healthcare utilization, and costs. Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advantage, hospital, and patient costs were derived from similar hospital admissions in administrative datasets. Results: Major CIED infection was associated with increased all-cause mortality (12-month risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 3.41 [95% CI, 1.81–6.41]; P

Aims Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rates are increasing. Worldwide compliance and disparities to published guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of these conditions are not well elucidated. The purpose of this survey, therefore, was to clarify these issues through an inquiry to arrhythmia-related associations and societies worldwide. Methods and results A questionnaire comprising 15 questions related to CIED infections was distributed among members of seven arrhythmia societies worldwide. A total of 234 centres in 62 countries reported implantation rates of which 159 (68.0%) performed more than 200 device implantations per year and 14 (6.0%) performed fewer than 50 implantations per year. The reported rates of CIED infections for 2017 were ≤2% in 78.7% of the centres, while the infection rates exceeded 5% in 7.8% of the centres. Preventive measures for CIED infection differed from published recommendations and varied among different regions mainly in terms of pocket irrigation and administering post-operative antimicrobial therapy the use of which was reported by 39.9% and 44% of the respondents, respectively. Antibacterial envelopes were used by 37.7% of the respondents in selected circumstances. In terms of pocket infection management, 62% of the respondents applied complete system removal as an initial step. Diagnostic pocket needle aspiration and pocket surgical debridement were reported by 15.8% and 11.8% of centres, respectively. Conclusion Clinical practices for prevention and management of CIED do not fully comply with current recommendations and demonstrate considerable regional disparities. Further education and programmes for improved implementation of guidelines are mandatory.

Background No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Methods Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. Results There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). Conclusion In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (versus dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. Methods We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. Results Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n = 1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n = 1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction = .036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Patients with diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, older age, and a relatively preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remain at risk for sudden cardiac death that is potentially amenable by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator with a good risk-benefit profile. The launched MADIT S-ICD study is designed to test the hypothesis that post–myocardial infarction diabetes patients with relatively preserved ejection fraction of 36%-50% will have a survival benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

In the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), a significant fraction of the patients with congestive heart failure ultimately did not die suddenly of arrhythmic causes. Patients with CHF will benefit from better tools to identify if implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is needed.We aimed to identify predictor variables from baseline SCD-HeFT patients' R-R intervals that correlate to arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD) and mortality and to design an ICD therapy screening test.Ten predictor variables were extracted from prerandomization Holter data from 475 patients enrolled in the ICD arm of the SCD-HeFT by using novel and traditional heart rate variability methods. All variables were correlated to SCD using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test and receiver operating characteristic analysis. ICD therapy screening tests were designed by minimizing the cost of false classifications. Survival analysis, including log-rank test and Cox models, was also performed.A short-term fractal exponent, α1, and a long-term fractal exponent, α2, from detrended fluctuation analysis, the ratio of low- to high-frequency power, the number of premature ventricular contractions per hour, and the heart rate turbulence slope are all statistically significant for predicting the occurrences of SCD (P.001) and survival (log-rank, P.01). The most powerful multivariate predictor tool using the Cox proportional hazards regression model was α2 with a hazard ratio of 0.0465 (95% confidence interval 0.00528-0.409; P.01).Predictor variables extracted from R-R intervals correlate to the occurrences of SCD and distinguish survival functions among patients with ICDs in SCD-HeFT. We believe that SCD prediction models should incorporate Holter-based R-R interval analysis to refine ICD patient selection, especially to exclude patients who are unlikely to benefit from ICD therapy.

This study sought to determine whether circadian patterns in ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occur in a current primary prevention defibrillator (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) population.Cardiovascular events, including VAs, demonstrate biorhythmic periodicity.We tested for deviation from the previously described occurrences of a morning peak, early morning nadir, and peak on Mondays in ICD therapies using generalized estimating equations and Student t tests. All hypothesis tests were performed in the entire cohort of patients with VAs as well as pre-specified subgroups.Of 811 patients with an ICD, 186 subjects experienced 714 ICD therapy episodes for life-threatening VA. There was no morning (6 am to 12 pm) peak in therapies for the entire cohort or any subgroups. The overall cohort and several subgroups had a typical early morning (12 am to 6 am) nadir in therapies, with significantly less than 25% of therapies occurring during this 6-h block (all p0.05). A significant peak in therapies on Mondays occurred only in patients not on beta-blocker therapy (22% of events for the week, p = 0.029).In the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) population, the distribution of life-threatening VA failed to show a typical early morning peak or increased VA events on Mondays. A typical early morning nadir was seen in the entire cohort. An increased rate of events on Mondays was found in the subgroup of subjects not on beta-blocker therapy. These findings may indicate suppression of the neurohormonal triggers for VA by current heart failure therapy, particularly the use of beta-blockers in heart failure.

Background The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an effective therapy for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and reduced left ventricular function; however, the optimal timing of ICD implantation after MI remains unknown. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine whether the benefit of single-lead conservatively programmed ICD therapy varies as a function of time from MI to ICD implantation. Methods We compared time to all-cause death and SCD between the ICD and placebo arms in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. Rates of appropriate shocks in the ICD arm were also assessed as a function of time after MI. Results Among the 712 patients with a history of MI, 274 died (38.5%), and 68 of these deaths were SCD (24.8%). Appropriate shocks were more common with increasing time after MI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per year after MI 1.04 [1.00–1.08]). Despite these differences, there was no evidence of differential mortality benefit with ICD implantation as a function of time after MI: continuous variable adjusted HR 1.00 [0.98,1.03] and shortest versus longest tertile adjusted HR 0.95 [0.66–1.34]. Sensitivity analyses also failed to show differential mortality benefit by quartile or with the use of an 18-month cutoff: Conclusion There is no evidence that ICD benefit varied with time from MI to implantation/randomization in this primary prevention population. Single-lead ICD benefit is not restricted to patients with a remote MI (>18 months).

Background Public access automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) can save lives, but most deaths from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest occur at home. The Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) found no survival advantage for adding a home AED to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for 7,001 patients with a prior anterior wall myocardial infarction. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes for both the patient and spouse/companion were secondary end points. Methods A subset of 1,007 study patients and their spouse/companions was randomly selected for ascertainment of QOL by structured interview at baseline and 12 and 24 months after enrollment. The primary QOL measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form psychological well-being (reflecting anxiety and depression) and vitality (reflecting energy and fatigue) subscales. Results For patients and spouse/companions, the psychological well-being and vitality scales did not differ significantly between those randomly assigned an AED plus CPR training and controls who received CPR training only. None of the other QOL measures collected showed a clinically and statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Patients in the AED group were more likely to report being extremely or quite a bit reassured by their treatment assignment. Spouse/companions in the AED group reported being less often nervous about the possibility of using AED/CPR treatment than those in the CPR group. Conclusions Adding access to a home AED to CPR training did not affect QOL either for patients with a prior anterior myocardial infarction or their spouse/companion but did provide more reassurance to the patients without increasing anxiety for spouse/companions.

Background— Sudden cardiac death remains a leading cause of mortality despite advances in medical treatment for the prevention of ischemic heart disease and heart failure. Recent studies showed a benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, but appropriate shocks for ventricular tachyarrhythmias were noted only in a minority of patients during 4 to 5 years of follow-up. Accordingly, better risk stratification is needed to optimize patient selection. In this regard, microvolt T-wave alternans (TWA) has emerged as a potentially useful measure of arrhythmia vulnerability, but it has not been evaluated previously in a prospective, randomized trial of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Methods and Results— This investigation was a prospective substudy of the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) that included 490 patients at 37 clinical sites. TWA tests were classified by blinded readers as positive (37%), negative (22%), or indeterminate (41%) by standard criteria. The composite primary end point was the first occurrence of any of the following events: sudden cardiac death, sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, or appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge. During a median follow-up of 30 months, no significant differences in event rates were found between TWA-positive or -negative patients (hazard ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 2.59, P =0.56) or TWA-negative and nonnegative (positive and indeterminate) subjects (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.53, P =0.46). Similar results were obtained with the inclusion or exclusion of patients randomized to amiodarone in the analyses. Conclusions— TWA testing did not predict arrhythmic events or mortality in SCD-HeFT, although a small reduction in events (20% to 25%) among TWA-negative patients cannot be excluded given the sample size of this study. Accordingly, these results suggest that TWA is not useful as an aid in clinical decision making on implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy among patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Background Patients with heart failure who receive an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention (i.e., prevention of a first life-threatening arrhythmic event) may later receive therapeutic shocks from the ICD. Information about longterm prognosis after ICD therapy in such patients is limited. Methods Of 829 patients with heart failure who were randomly assigned to ICD therapy, we implanted the ICD in 811. ICD shocks that followed the onset of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were considered to be appropriate. All other ICD shocks were considered to be inappropriate. Results Over a median follow-up period of 45.5 months, 269 patients (33.2%) received at least one ICD shock, with 128 patients receiving only appropriate shocks, 87 receiving only inappropriate shocks, and 54 receiving both types of shock. In a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, an appropriate ICD shock, as compared with no appropriate shock, was associated with a significant increase in the subsequent risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.97 to 8.12; P

Background Amiodarone's role as a cause of toxic optic neuropathy is based on case reports. Annual frequency estimates of 0.36% to 2.0%, which have been made without reference to the dose or duration of treatment, are 12 to 200 times higher than those for idiopathic nonarteritic anterior ischemic neuropathy. The object of this study was to determine the incidence, dose, and time until onset of bilateral vision loss from amiodarone as a secondary end point in an investigation of amiodarone's role in preventing sudden death. Methods Randomized subjects received body weight–determined doses of closed-label amiodarone (n = 837) or placebo (n = 832) in a prospective double-masked manner. Closed-label amiodarone subjects were followed, unless death occurred, for a minimum of 27 months. Median follow-up in survivors was 45.5 months. The end point was removal from the study because of bilateral vision loss. Results No subject was removed from the study because of bilateral vision loss. Subjects receiving continuous amiodarone for 4 to >60 months at daily doses of >2.0 mg/kg (n = 696), >3.0 mg/kg (n = 559), or >4.0 mg/kg (n = 219) had maximum possible (95% confidence) annual incidences of bilateral toxic vision loss of 0.23%, 0.29%, or 0.74%, respectively. The maximum possible annual incidence rate of bilateral vision loss from amiodarone in all 837 subjects (median age 60 years) receiving a mean daily dose of 3.7 mg/kg (300 mg) was 0.13%. Conclusions At the doses commonly used clinically, bilateral vision loss from amiodarone toxic optic neuropathy occurs infrequently, if at all.

Objectives This study investigated whether defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation predicts clinical outcomes. Background Defibrillation testing is often performed during insertion of ICDs to confirm shock efficacy. There are no prospective data to suggest that this procedure improves outcomes when modern ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden death. Methods The analysis included the 811 patients who were randomized to the ICD arm of the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) and had the device implanted. The DFT testing protocol in SCD-HeFT was designed to limit shock testing in a primary prevention heart failure population. Results Baseline DFT data were available for 717 patients (88.4%). All 717 patients had a DFT of ≤30 J, the maximum output of the device in this study. The DFT was ≤20 J in 97.8% of patients. There was no survival difference between patients with a lower DFT (≤10 J, n = 547) and a higher DFT (>10 J, n = 170) (p = 0.41). First shock efficacy was 83.0% for the first clinical ventricular tachyarrhythmia event; there were no differences in shock efficacies when the cohort was subdivided by baseline DFT. Conclusions Low baseline DFTs were obtained in patients with stable, optimally treated heart failure during ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death. First shock efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias was high regardless of baseline DFT testing results. Baseline DFT testing did not predict long-term mortality or shock efficacy in this study.

In 1925, Dr. Carl J. Wiggers demonstrated that pacing from the canine left ventricle (LV) improved acute hemodynamics [(1)][1]. The advent of pacing catheters delivered by the coronary sinus allowed practical use and exploration of LV or biventricular (BiV) pacing for improving heart failure (HF)

SCD-HeFT included 2,521 patients with NYHA class II or III heart failure (HF) and ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%. We hypothesized that turbulence slope (TS) and alpha1 (short-term fractal exponent from Detrended Fluctuation Analysis) of HF patients can be correlated to the necessity of

Background The active can, unipolar right ventricular (RV)single lead system has been shown to be very effective for ventricular defibrillation using an RV + → CAN – biphasic pulsing configuration. If this same RV + → CAN – unipolar system could perform double-duty, providing atrial as well as ventricular defibrillation, it would broaden the role of current implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). It would provide an atrial ICD without multiple shock electrodes, simultaneously providing backup protection for inadvertent induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) following atrial defibrillation. Methods and Results The purpose of this study was to determine the RV + → CAN – atrial defibrillation threshold at the time of ICD surgery for 10 VTNF patients using the Medtronic 7219C ICD shell with a biphasic 65% tilt, 60 μF capacitance pulse delivered one minute following induction of AF. Initial pulse strength was 100 V and was incremented in 100 V steps every minute if atrial fibrillation persisted. The atrial defibrillation threshold data with the RV + → CAN – system were 8.3 ± 4.1 joules, 511 ± 128 volts, and 58 ± 8 ohms. Conclusions Although the RV + → CAN – lead system does not provide atrial defibrillation at energies likely to be painless (e.g., l0.2 J), the safety and simplicity of this system has advantages that must be considered when compared to more complicated two and three lead elegtrode systems. If detection algorithms for AF, using near and far field electrogram analysis prove accurate, such a simple lead system may prove clinicallyviable.