4.6 Article

Feasibility and First Results of Heart Failure Monitoring Using the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

期刊

SENSORS
卷 21, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21237798

关键词

wearable cardioverter-defibrillator; sudden cardiac death; heart failure; heart failure monitoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the clinical relevance of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), finding that HRV5 could serve as an independent predictor for LVEF improvement.
The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is used in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition to arrhythmic events, the WCD provides near-continuous telemetric heart failure monitoring. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of additionally recorded parameters, such as heart rate or step count. We included patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF prescribed with a WCD. Via the WCD, step count and heart rate were acquired, and an approximate for heart rate variability (HRV5) was calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze predictors for an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Two hundred and seventy-six patients (31.9% female) were included. Mean LVEF was 25.3 +/- 8.5%. Between the first and last seven days of usage, median heart rate fell significantly (p < 0.001), while median step count and HRV5 significantly increased (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, a delta of HRV5 > 23 ms was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement of >= 10% between prescription and 3-month follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF showed significant changes in heart rate, step count, and HRV5 between the beginning and end of WCD prescription time. HRV5 was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement and could serve as an early indicator of treatment response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据