Background

Prehospital electrocardiogram(s) (ECG) can improve early detection of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], non-STEMI, and unstable angina) and inform prehospital activation of cardiac catheterization lab; thus, reducing total ischemic time and improving patient outcomes. Less is known, however, about the association of prehospital ECG ischemic findings and long term adverse clinical events. With this in mind, this study was designed to examine the: 1) frequency of prehospital ECGs for acute myocardial ischemia (ST-elevation, ST-depression, and/or T-wave inversion); and, 2) whether any of these specific ECG features are associated with adverse clinical events within 30 day of initial presentation to the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We included consecutive patients ≥ 21 years during a five-year period (2013-2017), who were transported by ambulance to the ED with non-traumatic chest pain and/or anginal equivalent(s) and had a prehospital 12‑lead ECG. Two cardiologists (LG, EC), blinded to clinical data, interpreted the 12‑lead ECGs applying current guideline based ischemia criteria. Adverse clinical events, return to ED, and rehospitalization evaluated at 30-days.

Results

We identified 3646 patients (mean age, 59.7 years ±15.7; 45% female) with ECGs, of which N = 3587 had data on the three ischemic markers of interest. Of these, 1762 (49.1%) had ECG evidence of ischemia. In adjusted logistic regression models, those with T-wave inversion had a higher odds (OR = 1.59) of new onset heart failure, while ST-elevation was associated with lower odds (OR = 0.69). Patients with ST-depression had higher odds of new onset heart failure and death within 30 days (OR = 1.29, 1.49 respectively), but this association attenuated after controlling for other ECG features.

Conclusions

ST-depression and/or T-wave inversion are independent predictors of new onset heart failure, within 30 days of initial ED presentation. Our study in a large cohort of patients, suggests that using ECG ST-elevation alone may not capture patients with ischemia who may benefit from aggressive anti-ischemic therapies to reduce myocardial damage with resultant heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high rate of sudden death after myocardial infarction among patients with a low ejection fraction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are contraindicated until 40 to 90 days after myocardial infarction. Whether a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator would reduce the incidence of sudden death during this high-risk period is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with acute myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator plus guideline-directed therapy (the device group) or to receive only guideline-directed therapy (the control group). The primary outcome was the composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachyarrhythmia at 90 days (arrhythmic death). Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and nonarrhythmic death. RESULTS: Of 2302 participants, 1524 were randomly assigned to the device group and 778 to the control group. Participants in the device group wore the device for a median of 18.0 hours per day (interquartile range, 3.8 to 22.7). Arrhythmic death occurred in 1.6% of the participants in the device group and in 2.4% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.21; P=0.18). Death from any cause occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the device group and in 4.9% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98; uncorrected P=0.04), and nonarrhythmic death in 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively (relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.19; uncorrected P=0.15). Of the 48 participants in the device group who died, 12 were wearing the device at the time of death. A total of 20 participants in the device group (1.3%) received an appropriate shock, and 9 (0.6%) received an inappropriate shock. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator did not lead to a significantly lower rate of the primary outcome of arrhythmic death than control. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Zoll Medical; VEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01446965 .).

Background

Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial did not demonstrate a significant reduction in arrhythmic death with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD), but compliance with the device may have substantially affected the results. ThePletcher influence of WCD compliance on outcomes has not yet been fully evaluated.

Methods

Using linear and pooled logistic models, we performed as-treated analyses omitting person-time in the hospital and adjusted for correlates of WCD compliance. To assess the impact of early stopping of WCD, we performed a per-protocol Kaplan-Meier analysis, censoring after the last day the WCD was worn. Interactions of potential effect modifiers with treatment assignment and WCD compliance on outcomes were investigated. Finally, we used linear models to identify predictors of WCD compliance.

Results

A per-protocol analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total (P < .001) and arrhythmic (P = .001) mortality. Better WCD compliance was independently predicted by cardiac arrest during index myocardial infarction (MI), higher Cr, diabetes, prior heart failure, EF ≤ 25%, Polish enrolling center and number of WCD alarms, while worse compliance was predicted by being divorced, Asian race, higher body mass index, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, or any WCD shock. Neither excluding time in hospital from the as-treated analysis nor adjustment for factors affecting WCD compliance materially changed the results. No variable demonstrated a significant interaction in either the intention-to-treat or as-treated analysis.

Conclusion

Robust sensitivity analyses of as-treated and per-protocol analyses suggest that the WCD is protective in compliant patients with ejection fraction less than or equal to 35% during the first 3 months post-MI.

Objectives

This study sought to determine clinician and scientist involvement in heart failure (HF) clinical research and to describe the challenges of conducting clinical trials in the United States.

Background

Improvements in the current capability, potential, and deficiencies of the HF clinical research infrastructure in the United States are needed in order to enhance efficiency and impact.

Methods

The Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) distributed an electronic survey regarding HF clinical trial activity for the purpose of understanding the barriers that exist to conducting high-quality HF clinical research.

Results

Overall, 1,794 HFSA members were queried, and 434 members (24%) completed surveys, whereas a total of 7,589 individuals with interest in HF were queried, and 615 completed surveys. Of the respondents, 410 (67%) were actively engaged in HF research and 120 (20%) were interested in research. Most respondents, 270, were physicians (44%); 311 of the total (76% of the total and 80% of physicians) practiced in academic institutions; 333 respondents (81%) had served as principal investigators and 73 (18%) as site coordinators. Respondents active in clinical research usually participated in 1 to 5 trials and enrolled 1 to 20 patients annually. Institutional review board (IRB) approval typically required 3 months, and contract completion required 3 to 6 months per site. The greatest barriers to research were insufficient site budgets, delay in contracting, inability to find participants meeting trial entry criteria, and unavailability of qualified study coordinators.

Conclusions

Many U.S. clinical research sites are constrained by budgetary, staffing, and contractual issues. The HFSA Research Network seeks to unify interested sites and deconstruct barriers to permit high-value HF research.

Background

Despite the high rate of sudden death after myocardial infarction among patients with a low ejection fraction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are contraindicated until 40 to 90 days after myocardial infarction. Whether a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator would reduce the incidence of sudden death during this high-risk period is unclear.

Methods

We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with acute myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator plus guideline-directed therapy (the device group) or to receive only guideline-directed therapy (the control group). The primary outcome was the composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachyarrhythmia at 90 days (arrhythmic death). Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and nonarrhythmic death.

Results

Of 2302 participants, 1524 were randomly assigned to the device group and 778 to the control group. Participants in the device group wore the device for a median of 18.0 hours per day (interquartile range, 3.8 to 22.7). Arrhythmic death occurred in 1.6% of the participants in the device group and in 2.4% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.21; P=0.18). Death from any cause occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the device group and in 4.9% of those in the control group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98; uncorrected P=0.04), and nonarrhythmic death in 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively (relative risk, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.19; uncorrected P=0.15). Of the 48 participants in the device group who died, 12 were wearing the device at the time of death. A total of 20 participants in the device group (1.3%) received an appropriate shock, and 9 (0.6%) received an inappropriate shock.

Conclusions

Among patients with a recent myocardial infarction and an ejection fraction of 35% or less, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator did not lead to a significantly lower rate of the primary outcome of arrhythmic death than control. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Zoll Medical; VEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01446965 .).

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.