Ledesma Oloriz David, García Iglesias Daniel, di Massa Pezzutti Rodrigo Ariel, López Iglesias Fernando, Rubín López José Manuel
Arrhythmia Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, 33011 Oviedo, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), 33011 Oviedo, Spain.
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025 May 31;12(6):209. doi: 10.3390/jcdd12060209.
Implantable defibrillator devices (ICDs) can be used for remote monitoring of different variables, including some related to Heart Failure (HF). Two different algorithms (TriageHF and HeartLogic) arise by combining some of these variables to generate an estimation of HF decompensation risk in the following days. Until now, no other trial has evaluated both algorithms in a head-to-head comparison. The primary objective is to compare diagnostic accuracy of both algorithms in a similar cohort of patients.
Descriptive monocentric cohort study of a series of 64 patients who have been implanted with a Medtronic or Boston Scientific ICD with the TriageHF or Heart Logic algorithm available during the period between January 2020 and June 2022, with a total of 27 patients in the HeartLogic group and 37 patients in the TriageHF group.
During the period of the study there were a total of 1142 alarms analyzed. There were no differences in the basal characteristics of both groups. We reported a risk alarm-patient ratio of 1.31 ± 1.89 in the HeartLogic group and of 3.32 ± 3.08 in the TriageHF group ( < 0.01). In the TriageHF group, we reported a lower specificity with (0.76), with higher sensitivity (0.97) and PPV (0.18), and similar NPV (1). Survival analysis shows no statistical differences between both algorithms in the 30 days following the alert.
TriageHF algorithm had higher sensibility and PPV, leading to a higher number of alerts/patients, while HeartLogic algorithm had a better specificity. These differences should be considered to optimize patient follow-ups in home monitoring.
植入式除颤器设备（ICD）可用于远程监测不同变量，包括一些与心力衰竭（HF）相关的变量。通过组合其中一些变量产生了两种不同的算法（TriageHF和HeartLogic），以生成未来几天HF失代偿风险的估计值。到目前为止，尚无其他试验对这两种算法进行过直接比较。主要目的是比较这两种算法在相似患者队列中的诊断准确性。
对2020年1月至2022年6月期间植入美敦力或波士顿科学ICD且具备TriageHF或HeartLogic算法的64例患者进行描述性单中心队列研究，HeartLogic组共27例患者，TriageHF组共37例患者。
在研究期间，共分析了1142次警报。两组的基线特征无差异。我们报告HeartLogic组的风险警报与患者比例为1.31±1.89，TriageHF组为3.32±3.08（<0.01）。在TriageHF组中，我们报告其特异性较低（0.76），敏感性较高（0.97）和阳性预测值（PPV）较高（0.18），阴性预测值（NPV）相似（1）。生存分析显示，在警报后的30天内，两种算法之间无统计学差异。
TriageHF算法具有更高的敏感性和PPV，导致警报/患者数量更多，而HeartLogic算法具有更好的特异性。在优化家庭监测中的患者随访时应考虑这些差异。
