Aims  We aimed to provide contemporary real-world data on wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) use, not only in terms of effectiveness and safety but also compliance and acceptability. Methods and results  Across 88 French centres, the WEARIT-France study enrolled retrospectively patients who used the WCD between May 2014 and December 2016, and prospectively all patients equipped for WCD therapy between January 2017 and March 2018. All patients received systematic education session through a standardized programme across France at the time of initiation of WCD therapy and were systematically enrolled in the LifeVest Network remote services. Overall, 1157 patients were included (mean age 60 ± 12 years, 16% women; 46% prospectively): 82.1% with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 10.3% after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator explant, and 7.6% before heart transplantation. Median WCD usage period was 62 (37–97) days. Median daily wear time of WCD was 23.4 (22.2–23.8) h. In multivariate analysis, younger age was associated with lower compliance [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–0.99, P < 0.01]. A total of 18 participants (1.6%) received at least one appropriate shock, giving an incidence of appropriate therapy of 7.2 per 100 patient-years. Patient-response button allowed the shock to be aborted in 35.7% of well-tolerated sustained ventricular arrhythmias and in 95.4% of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia detection, finally resulting in an inappropriate therapy in eight patients (0.7%). Conclusion Our real-life findings reinforce previous studies on the efficacy and safety of the WCD in the setting of transient high-risk group in selected patients. Moreover, they emphasize the fact that when prescribed appropriately, in concert with adequate patient education and dedicated follow-up using specific remote monitoring system, compliance with WCD is high and the device well-tolerated by the patient.

No abstract

No abstract

The wireless capsule video endoscopy is useful in patients with occult blood loss, but is contraindicated in patients with cardiac pacemaker (PM). No case of interference has been published. We report the case of a patient with a PM implanted in the abdominal wall. After capsule ingestion, cardiac monitoring showed no modification of the PM compartment (VOO, unipolar mode) but the capsule recording reveal more than 3 hours of loss of image. The wireless capsule endoscopy is safe in patients with PMs in VOO mode. Nevertheless important interference was noted in the recording when the capsule was near the PM.