Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Shocks During COVID‐19 Outbreak

Background COVID‐19 was temporally associated with an increase in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrests, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. We sought to determine if patients with implantable defibrillators residing in areas with high COVID‐19 activity experienced an increase in defibrillator shocks during the COVID‐19 outbreak. Methods and Results Using the Medtronic (Mounds View, MN) Carelink database from 2019 and 2020, we retrospectively determined the incidence of implantable defibrillator shock episodes among patients residing in New York City, New Orleans, LA, and Boston, MA. A total of 14 665 patients with a Medtronic implantable defibrillator (age, 66±13 years; and 72% men) were included in the analysis. Comparing analysis time periods coinciding with the COVID‐19 outbreak in 2020 with the same periods in 2019, we observed a larger mean rate of defibrillator shock episodes per 1000 patients in New York City (17.8 versus 11.7, respectively), New Orleans (26.4 versus 13.5, respectively), and Boston (30.9 versus 20.6, respectively) during the COVID‐19 surge. Age‐ and sex‐adjusted hurdle model showed that the Poisson distribution rate of defibrillator shocks for patients with ≥1 shock was 3.11 times larger (95% CI, 1.08–8.99; P =0.036) in New York City, 3.74 times larger (95% CI, 0.88–15.89; P =0.074) in New Orleans, and 1.97 times larger (95% CI, 0.69–5.61; P =0.202) in Boston in 2020 versus 2019. However, the binomial odds of any given patient having a shock episode was not different in 2020 versus 2019. Conclusions Defibrillator shock episodes increased during the higher COVID‐19 activity in New York City, New Orleans, and Boston. These observations may provide insights into COVID‐19–related increase in cardiac arrests.

Timely and individualized heart failure management: need for implementation into the new guidelines

Due to remarkable improvements in heart failure (HF) management over the last 30 years, a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been observed. Currently, the optimization of guideline-directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve outcomes for patients with HFrEF to reduce mortality and HF hospitalization. This includes established device therapies, such as implantable defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapies, which improved patients' symptoms and prognosis. Over the last 10 years, new HF drugs have merged targeting various pathways, such as those that simultaneously suppress the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and the breakdown of endogenous natriuretic peptides (e.g., sacubitril/valsartan), and those that inhibit the If channel and, thus, reduce heart rate (e.g., ivabradine). Furthermore, the treatment of patient comorbidities (e.g., iron deficiency) has shown to improve functional capacity and to reduce hospitalization rates, when added to standard therapy. More recently, other potential treatment mechanisms have been explored, such as the sodium/glucose co-transporter inhibitors, the guanylate cyclase stimulators and the cardiac myosin activators. In this review, we summarize the novel developments in HFrEF pharmacological and device therapy and discuss their implementation strategies into practice to further improve outcomes.

JASTRO/JCS Guidelines for radiotherapy in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

ABSTRACT This publication is an English version of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (JASTRO) and The Japanese Circulation Society official guidelines for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Several radiotherapy-associated malfunctions have been reported for CIEDs such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Accordingly, guidelines for radiotherapy in patients with CIEDs have been issued by other countries and societies. In August 2010, JASTRO published the ‘Radiotherapy Guidelines for Patients with Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators’ (hereafter referred to as the former guidelines). Given new findings in this decade, a multidisciplinary working group of radiation oncologists, medical physicists, radiation therapists and cardiologists jointly reviewed and revised the former guidelines.