Sears, Samuel F

ABSTRACT Introduction Etripamil is a fast‐acting intranasally self‐administered calcium‐channel blocker developed for termination of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). Prior studies have demonstrated safety and efficacy of etripamil for PSVT termination following an initial medically supervised test dose during sinus rhythm. NODE‐303 is an open‐label, single‐arm study that evaluated etripamil for multiple, at‐home PSVT episodes, without test dose before first use. Methods Patients applied an ECG monitor at symptom onset and self‐administered etripamil (70 mg) if a vagal maneuver was unsuccessful. ECG monitoring occurred for ≥ 1 h following study drug administration. A repeat 70‐mg dose was introduced during the study for symptoms persisting 10 min after the first dose. Safety measures included treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ECG arrhythmia‐surveillance. Efficacy measures were captured for PSVT termination during treatment of each of the multiple episodes. Results 1054 perceived PSVT episodes were etripamil‐treated in 503 of 1116 patients enrolled. TEAEs within 24 h were mostly mild or moderate and localized: 30.2% of patients experienced nasal discomfort, nasal congestion (13.9%), rhinorrhea (13.1%), epistaxis (7.4%). TEAE frequencies decreased across multiple PSVT episodes and were similar for single versus repeat doses. For first PSVT episodes, 70.5% of patients converted to sinus rhythm by 60 min post etripamil (median time to conversion = 18.3 min [14.2–25.6]). Conversion in earlier episodes was consistently predictive of conversion in subsequent episodes. Conclusions Etripamil nasal spray self‐administered in a real‐world setting was well tolerated, effective, and had a consistent safety profile as a single‐ or repeat‐dose regimen across multiple PSVT episodes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04072835

Abstract Introduction The pivotal study of the extravascular implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (EV ICD) recently demonstrated primary efficacy and safety endpoints comparable to previous ICD systems. Patient experience with this novel device has not been reported. The current study examined the standardized patient‐reported outcome (PRO) metrics of quality of life (QOL) and patient acceptance of the device. Methods The EV ICD Pivotal Study was a prospective, single‐arm, nonrandomized, global, premarket approval trial. Patients completed the 12‐Item Short Form Survey (SF‐12) QOL surveys at baseline and at 6 months following implant. Additionally, patients completed the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) QOL survey at 6 months. Results From baseline to 6 months, patients within the EV ICD Pivotal Study ( n = 247) reported statistically significant SF‐12 improvements in physical QOL (45.4 ± 9.4 vs. 46.8 ± 9.1 respectively, p = .020) and no changes in mental QOL (49.3 ± 10.4 vs. 50.5 ± 9.7, p = .061). No differences were noted by sex, atrial fibrillation, or the experience of ICD shock. EV ICD patients reported better total FPAS patient acceptance of their ICD than TV‐ICD or S‐ICD patients using historical norms comparisons (80.4 ± 15.7 vs. 70.2 ± 17.8, p < .0001 for S‐ICD and 73.0 ± 17.4, p = .004 for TV‐ICD). Conclusion The initial PROs for EV ICD patients indicated that patients had improvements in physical QOL from baseline to 6‐month follow‐up and markedly better overall acceptance of their ICD compared to a previous study with S‐ICD and TV‐ICD data. These initial results suggest that the EV ICD is evaluated positively by patients.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.