The possibilities and implementation of wearable cardiac monitoring beyond atrial fibrillation are increasing continuously. This review focuses on the real-world use and evolution of these devices for other arrhythmias, cardiovascular diseases and some of their risk factors beyond atrial fibrillation. The management of nonatrial fibrillation arrhythmias represents a broad field of wearable technologies in cardiology using Holter, event recorder, electrocardiogram (ECG) patches, wristbands and textiles. Implementation in other patient cohorts, such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), heart failure or sleep apnea, is feasible and expanding. In addition to appropriate accuracy, clinical studies must address the validation of clinical pathways including the appropriate device and clinical decisions resulting from the surrogate assessed.

In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy. However, improvement may not be completed within 90 days. Patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2017 and 2022 from 68 sites were enrolled, starting with a registry phase for 3 months and followed by a study phase up to 1 year. The primary endpoints were LVEF improvement > 35% between Days 90 and 180 following guideline-recommended medical therapy initiation and the percentage of target dose reached at Days 90 and 180. A total of 598 patients with de novo HFrEF [59 years (interquartile range 51–68), 27% female] entered the study phase. During the first 180 days, a significant increase in dosage of beta-blockers, renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was observed (P < .001). At Day 90, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41%–50%] of study phase patients had LVEF improvement > 35%; 46% (95% CI 40%–52%) of those with persistently low LVEF at Day 90 had LVEF improvement > 35% by Day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement > 35% to 68% (95% CI 63%–72%). In 392 patients followed for 360 days, improvement > 35% was observed in 77% (95% CI 72%–81%) of the patients. Until Day 90, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were observed in 24 wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers (1.8%). After 90 days, no sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers. Continuous optimization of guideline-recommended medical therapy for at least 180 days in HFrEF is associated with additional LVEF improvement > 35%, allowing for better decision-making regarding preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Summary of design and results of Heart Failure Optimization study. Median left ventricular ejection fraction and percentage of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction > 35% at baseline, Days 90, 180, and 360. GRMT, guideline-recommended medical therapy; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; WCD, wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Background: Brugada syndrome (BrS) is characterized by the type 1 Brugada ECG pattern. Pathogenic rare variants in SCN5A (mutations) are identified in 20% of BrS families in whom incomplete penetrance and genotype-negative phenotype-positive individuals are observed. E1784K- SCN5A is the most common SCN5A mutation identified. We determined the association of a BrS genetic risk score (BrS-GRS) and SCN5A mutation type on BrS phenotype in BrS families with SCN5A mutations. Methods: Subjects with a spontaneous type 1 pattern or positive/negative drug challenge from cohorts harboring SCN5A mutations were recruited from 16 centers (n=312). Single nucleotide polymorphisms previously associated with BrS at genome-wide significance were studied in both cohorts: rs11708996, rs10428132, and rs9388451. An additive linear genetic model for the BrS-GRS was assumed (6 single nucleotide polymorphism risk alleles). Results: In the total population (n=312), BrS-GRS ≥4 risk alleles yielded an odds ratio of 4.15 for BrS phenotype ([95% CI, 1.45–11.85]; P =0.0078). Among SCN5A -positive individuals (n=258), BrS-GRS ≥4 risk alleles yielded an odds ratio of 2.35 ([95% CI, 0.89–6.22]; P =0.0846). In SCN5A -negative relatives (n=54), BrS-GRS ≥4 alleles yielded an odds ratio of 22.29 ([95% CI, 1.84–269.30]; P =0.0146). Among E1784K- SCN5A positive family members (n=79), hosting ≥4 risk alleles gave an odds ratio=5.12 ([95% CI, 1.93–13.62]; P =0.0011). Conclusions: Common genetic variation is associated with variable expressivity of BrS phenotype in SCN5A families, explaining in part incomplete penetrance and genotype-negative phenotype-positive individuals. SCN5A mutation genotype and a BrS-GRS associate with BrS phenotype, but the strength of association varies according to presence of a SCN5A mutation and severity of loss of function.

Introduction: Noninvasive ablative radiotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias (stereotactic ablative body radiation) has shown promising initial results. Precise targeting of the arrhythmogenic substrate is paramount to limit adverse effects to healthy myocardium, organs at risk, and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Using electroanatomic maps for treatment planning is technically challenging.Methods and Results: Using the free open‐source 3D Slicer software platform we established a workflow for high‐precision target definition based on electroanatomic maps. An import plug‐in for 3D Slicer has been designed that reads electroanatomic maps generated with three mapping systems in widespread clinical use. Using our proposed workflow in a real‐world patient case we were able to align the map to the computed tomography (CT) with a mean distance of 3.1 mm. Thus, points defined on the map were translated into CT space with high accuracy and a radiotherapy treatment volume was defined in CT space based on these map‐derived points.Conclusion: We describe a novel high‐precision target definition method for stereotactic ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Multimodal integration of the electroanatomic map with the planning CT allows for highly accurate localization of previously identified electrophysiological features in CT space. It remains to be shown whether this novel planning workflow leads to superior ablation outcomes when compared with other approaches.

A 42-year-old man experiencing nonischemic cardiomyopathy with severely reduced left ventricular function and advanced heart failure met the criteria for primary prophylactic implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD; EMBLEM; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) was implanted at a secondary center in November 2015 with the lead (3401; Boston Scientific) tunnelled in left parasternal position. Before implantation, surface ECG screening was performed following the manufacturer’s instructions. A few weeks later, the patient was transferred to Hannover Medical School because of heart failure deterioration (New York Heart Association class IV). After careful evaluation, a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD; HeartMate 3; Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) was implanted using conventional sternotomy.1 Approximately 1 hour after LVAD implantation, the patient received 31 S-ICD shocks. The device was immediately deactivated. Interrogation of the S-ICD revealed normal sinus rhythm during the shocks. However, R waves were diminished and superimposed by electric …

Background: The prospective WEARIT-II-EUROPE registry aimed to assess the value of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) prior to potential ICD implantation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction considered at risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Methods and results: 781 patients (77% men; mean age 59.3 ± 13.4 years) with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were consecutively enrolled. All patients received a WCD. Follow-up time for all patients was 12 months. Mean baseline LVEF was 26.9%. Mean WCD wearing time was 75 ± 47.7 days, mean daily WCD use 20.3 ± 4.6 h. WCD shocks terminated 13 VT/VF events in ten patients (1.3%). Two patients died during WCD prescription of non-arrhythmic cause. Mean LVEF increased from 26.9 to 36.3% at the end of WCD prescription (p < 0.01). After WCD use, ICDs were implanted in only 289 patients (37%). Forty patients (5.1%) died during follow-up. Five patients (1.7%) died with ICDs implanted, 33 patients (7%) had no ICD (no information on ICD in two patients). The majority of patients (75%) with the follow-up of 12 months after WCD prescription died from heart failure (15 patients) and non-cardiac death (15 patients). Only three patients (7%) died suddenly. In seven patients, the cause of death remained unknown. Conclusions: Mortality after WCD prescription was mainly driven by heart failure and non-cardiovascular death. In patients with HFrEF and a potential risk of sudden arrhythmic death, WCD protected observation of LVEF progression and appraisal of competing risks of potential non-arrhythmic death may enable improved selection for beneficial ICD implantation. Graphic