Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most widely used prognostic marker in cardiovascular diseases. LV global function index (LVGFI) is a novel marker which incorporates the total LV structure in the assessment of LV cardiac performance. We evaluated the prognostic significance of LVGFI, measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), in predicting mortality and ICD therapies in a real-world (ICD) population with secondary ICD prevention indication, to detect a high-risk group among these patients. In total, 105 patients with cardiac MRI prior to the ICD implantation were included (mean age 56 ± 16 years old; 76% male). Using the MRI data for each patient LVGFI was determined and a cut-off for the LVGFI value was calculated. Patients were followed up every four to six months in our or clinics in proximity. Data on the occurrence of heart failure symptoms and or mortality, as well as device therapies and other vital parameters, were collected. Follow up duration was 37 months in median. The mean LVGFI was 24.5%, the cut off value for LVGFI 13.5%. According to the LVGFI Index patient were divided into 2 groups, 86 patients in the group with the higher LVGFI und 19 patients in the lower group. The LVGFI correlates significantly with the LVEF (r = 0.642, p < 0.001). In Kaplan–Meier analysis, a lower LVGFI (<13.5%) was associated with a higher rate of mortality and rehospitalization (p = 0.002). In contrast, echocardiographic LVEF ≤ 33% was not associated with a higher rate of mortality or rehospitalization. Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed a lower LVGFI (p = 0.025, HR = 0.941; 95%-CI 0.89–0.99) and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.027, HR = 0.33; 95%-CI 0.13–0.88) as an independent predictor for mortality and rehospitalization. There was no association between the combined endpoint and the LVEFMRT, LVEFecho, NYHA > I, the initial device or a medication (each p = n.s.). Further, in Kaplan–Meier analysis no association was evident between the LVGFI and adequate ICD therapy (p = n.s.). In secondary prevention ICD patients reduced LVGFI was shown as an independent predictor for mortality and rehospitalization, but not for ICD therapies. We were able to identify a high-risk collective among these patients, but further investigation is needed to evaluate LVGFI compared to ejection fraction, especially in patients with an elevated risk for adverse cardiac events.

Background: Aim of the study was a better characterization of heart failure (HF) with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and undulating EF (HFuEF) with regard to rehospitalization due to congestive HF (CHF), adequate electric therapies (AETs) and mortality compared to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (pEF).Methods: Retrospective study of 342 participants with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention. Type of HF was classified according to left ventricular EF with 4.7 ± 3.1 investigations for each patient.Results: Re-hospitalization due to CHF was similar in HFrecEF (7 (9.5%)), HFmrEF (2(9.0%)) and pEF (8(12.9%); p = n.s.) and significantly higher in HFrEF (62(38.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); p < .001 compared to HFrecEF and HFrEF). AETs were significantly lower in HFrecEF (13(17.6%)) compared to HFrEF (57(35.0%)), HFmrEF (7(31.8%)), pEF (18(29.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); each p < .01 compared to HFrecEF). Mortality was similar in HFrecEF (6(8.1%)) compared to HFuEF (0(0%)), pEF (4(6.5%)) and HFm-rEF (2(9.0%), p = n.s.) and significantly lower compared to HFrEF (52(31.9%), p < .001).HFrEF was the strongest predictor for mortality besides age and chronic renal insufficiency according to Cox Regression (each p < .05) opposite to arterial hypertension, diabetes, type of cardiomyopathy and secondary prevention ICD indication (each p = n.s.). Conclusions: HFrecEF indicates as a new entity of HF with similar prognosis as pEF andHFmrEF with regard to re-hospitalization due to CHF and mortality and even better prognosis with regard to AETs. HFuEF showed similar rates of re-hospitalization due to CHF and AETs compared to HFrEF, but lower rates of mortality.

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is well established for secondary prevention, but studies on the efficacy and safety in elderly patients are still lacking. This retrospective study compared the outcome after ICD implantation between octogenarians and other age groups. Methods Data were obtained from a local ICD registry. Patients who received ICD implantation for secondary prevention at our department were included. All-cause mortality, appropriate ICD therapy and acute adverse events requiring surgical intervention were compared between different age groups. Results 519 patients were enrolled, 34 of whom were aged ≥ 80 years. During the median follow-up of 35 months after ICD implantation 129 patients (annual mortality rate 5.0%) had died, including 16 patients aged ≥ 80 years (annual mortality rate 9.4%). The mortality rate of patients aged ≥ 80 years was significantly higher than that of patients aged ≤ 69 years (p < 0.001), but similar to that of patients aged 70–79 years. Age at the time of ICD implantation was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (p < 0.001). 29.7% of patients had appropriate ICD therapy with no difference between age groups. Acute adverse events leading to surgical intervention were low (n = 13) and not age-related. Conclusion Age is an independent predictor of mortality after ICD implantation for secondary prevention. Mortality rates did not differ significantly between octogenarians and other elderly aged 70–79 years. Appropriate ICD therapy and acute adverse events leading to surgical intervention were not age-related. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for secondary prevention seems to be an effective and safe treatment modality in octogenarians.

Purpose The current study investigated whether the changes in patient care in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the reduction of in-person visits, would result in a deterioration of the arrhythmic and clinical condition of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and remote patient monitoring. Methods Data were obtained from a local ICD registry. 140 patients who received ICD implantation at our department and had remote patient monitoring were included. The number of patients with ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD therapy, the number of visits to our outpatient clinic and hospitalization due to acute coronary syndrome, stroke or heart failure were compared during three time intervals of the COVID-19 pandemic (first (LD1) and second (LD2) national lockdown in Germany and the time after the first lockdown (postLD1)) and a time interval 1 year before the pandemic began (preCOV). Each time interval was 49 days long. Results Patients had significantly fewer visits to our outpatient clinic during LD1 (n = 13), postLD1 (n = 22) and LD2 (n = 23) compared to the time interval before the pandemic (n = 43, each p ≤ 0.05). The number of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD therapy and clinical events showed no significant difference during the time intervals of the COVID-19 pandemic and the time interval 1 year prior. Conclusions The lockdown measures necessary to reduce the risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, led to a reduction of in-person patient visits, but did not result in a deterioration of the arrhythmic and clinical condition of ICD patients with remote patient monitoring.

Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies, even when appropriate, are associated with increased risk. Therapy-reducing strategies have been shown to reduce the mortality rate. Methods and Results: In total, 895 patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillation function (CRT-D) were included in the study; of these, 506 (57%) patients undergoing secondary prevention were included. Devices implanted before May 2014 were programmed according to conventional programming (CP), the others according to our novel programming (NP) with high rate cutoff , longer detection intervals and 4-6 anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) trains in the ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone. Time-to-first-event for mortality, appropriate and inappropriate therapies were analyzed. Follow-up time was 24.0 months (IQR 13.0-24.0 months). There was a significant reduction in mortality rate (11.4% vs. 25.4%, P<0.001) and in the rate of appropriate (18.8% vs. 42.2%, P<0.001) and inappropriate therapies (5.2% vs. 18.0%, P<0.001) with NP according to Kaplan-Meier analyses. In multivariate analysis, NP (hazard ratio [HR]=0.35; P<0.001), chronic kidney disease (HR=1.55), reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HR=1.35), secondary ICD indication (HR=2.35) and age at implantation (HR=1.02) were associated with mortality reduction. NP was also associated with significant reduction in the rate of appropriate and inappropriate therapies. These results were consistent after stratification for primary and secondary prevention. Conclusions: Novel ICD programming reduced mortality and morbidity due to appropriate or inappropriate ICD therapies in secondary as well as in primary ICD indication.