Objectives To assess the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) in adult persons with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest and for which an implantable cardioverter is currently not applicable. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CRD-databases. Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently. Data were presented quantitatively; due to heterogeneity of studies no meta-analysis was performed. Results One randomized-controlled trial (RCT), one non-randomized comparative trial, and forty-four non-comparative trials were included. The RCT reported an overall mortality of 3.1 percent in the WCD group versus 4.9 percent in controls (relative risk [RR]: .64; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], .43–.98, p = .04), but no significant effect on arrhythmia-related mortality. The RR for arrhythmia-related mortality amounted to .67 (95 percent CI, .37–1.21, p = .18) as assessed in the RCT. Appropriate shocks were observed in 1.3 percent of patients in both comparative studies, and inappropriate shocks in .6 percent of patients in the RCT. Termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) was successful in 75 to 100 percent of appropriate shocks in all studies. Adverse events assessed in the RCT showed a lower incidence of shortness of breath (38.8 percent vs. 45.3 percent; p = .004), higher incidence of rash at any location (15.3 percent vs. 7.1 percent; p < .001), and higher incidence of itching at any location (17.2 percent vs. 6.4 percent; p < .001) for WCD. Conclusions Available evidence demonstrates that the WCD detects and terminates VT/VF events reliably and shows a high rate of appropriate shocks in mixed patient populations. Data of large registries confirm that the WCD is a safe intervention.

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in adult patients with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in Medline (via PubMed) and Cochrane Library in February 2022 and included studies with a study population ≥18 years and prescribed WCD. PRO include health-related quality of life (QoL), symptoms, utilities, or satisfaction ratings. Study selection was done by two reviewers independently using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of studies as well as data extraction was performed by one author and approved by a second author. Results of the included studies are presented quantitatively. Results One randomized controlled trial (RCT), one comparative non-randomized trial, and three single-arm trials were included. QoL was assessed in four studies, but with different assessment tools. One study additionally evaluated the change in depressive symptoms and anxiety and one study focused on acceptability of WCD but evaluated items that are closely related to QoL. Results of the RCT show no statistically significant difference in QoL assessed by SF-36 and EQ-5D comparing WCD and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. One comparative study reports an improvement in depressive symptoms and anxiety within groups but no significant difference between groups. Further, one single-arm study reported improvement in QoL between baseline and day 90 and day 180. Conclusions The available evidence demonstrates that the usage of WCD is not affecting PRO, like QoL, depressive symptoms or anxiety negatively.