METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, 5276 patients with symptomatic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 11 Asian regions and across 3 income regions (high: Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan; middle: China, Malaysia, and Thailand; and low: India, Indonesia, and Philippines) were studied. ICD utilization, clinical characteristics, as well as device perception and knowledge, were assessed at baseline among ICD-eligible patients (EF ≤35% and New York Heart Association Class II-III). Patients were followed for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Among 3240 ICD-eligible patients (mean age 58.9±12.9 years, 79.1% men), 389 (12%) were ICD recipients. Utilization varied across Asia (from 1.5% in Indonesia to 52.5% in Japan) with a trend toward greater uptake in regions with government reimbursement for ICDs and lower out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure. ICD (versus non-ICD) recipients were more likely to be older (63±11 versus 58±13 year; P<0.001), have tertiary (versus ≤primary) education (34.9% versus 18.1%; P<0.001) and be residing in a high (versus low) income region (64.5% versus 36.5%; P<0.001). Among 2000 ICD nonrecipients surveyed, 55% were either unaware of the benefits of, or needed more information on, device therapy. ICD implantation reduced risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.97) and sudden cardiac deaths (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.79) over a median follow-up of 417 days.

CONCLUSIONS: ICDs reduce mortality risk, yet utilization in Asia is low; with disparity across geographic regions and socioeconomic status. Better patient education and targeted healthcare reforms in extending ICD reimbursement may improve access.

PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to examine the mortality benefit in PP patients by guideline-indicated device type: ICD and CRT-D.

METHODS: Improve sudden cardiac arrest was a prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded multicenter trial that enrolled patients from regions where ICD utilization is low. PP patient's CRT-D or ICD eligibility was based upon the 2008 ACC/AHA/HRS and 2006 ESC guidelines. Mortality was assessed according to guideline-indicated device type comparing implanted and nonimplanted patients. Cox proportional hazards methods were used, adjusting for known factors affecting mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report was to describe the prespecified long-term safety objective of Micra at 12 months and electrical performance through 24 months.

METHODS: The Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study was a prospective single-arm study designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the Micra VVIR leadless/intracardiac pacemaker. Enrolled patients met class I or II guideline recommendations for de novo ventricular pacing. The long-term safety objective was freedom from a system- or procedure-related major complication at 12 months. A predefined historical control group of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers was used to compare major complication rates.

RESULTS: The long-term safety objective was achieved with a freedom from major complication rate of 96.0% at 12 months (95% confidence interval 94.2%-97.2%; P < .0001 vs performance goal). The risk of major complications for patients with Micra (N = 726) was 48% lower than that for patients with transvenous systems through 12 months postimplant (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.77; P = .001). Across subgroups of age, sex, and comorbidities, Micra reduced the risk of major complications compared to transvenous systems. Electrical performance was excellent through 24 months, with a projected battery longevity of 12.1 years.

METHODS: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.

RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.