Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks

Preoperative Prediction of Shock Impedance for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Using Chest Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

High shock impedance is associated with conversion failure among patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD). Currently, there is no preoperative assessment method for predicting high shock impedance. This study examined the efficacy of chest computed tomography (CT) as a preoperative evaluation tool to assess the shock impedance of S-ICDs.Methods and Results: The amount of adipose tissue adjacent to the device and anteroposterior diameter at the basal heart region were measured preoperatively using chest CT. We examined the correlation between these measurements and shock impedance at the conversion test. We enrolled 43 patients with S-ICDs (mean [±SD] age 54±15 years; body mass index 23±4 kg/m2; PRAETORIAN score 30-270 points; amount of adipose tissue 1,250±716 cm3), who underwent intraoperative conversion tests by inducing ventricular fibrillation, which was terminated with a 65-J shock. A sufficient concordance correlation coefficient was observed between the shock impedance and the amount of adipose tissue (r=0.616, P<0.01) and anteroposterior diameter (r=0.645, P<0.01). In multiple regression analysis, the amount of adipose tissue (β=0.439, P=0.009) and anteroposterior diameter (β=0.344, P=0.038) were identified as independent predictive factors of shock impedance.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative CT-measured amount of adipose tissue and basal heart anteroposterior diameter are independent predictors of shock impedance. These parameters may be more accurate in identifying higher shock impedance in patients with S-ICDs.

The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The absence of pacing capabilities may reduce the appeal of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices for patients at risk for conduction disorders or with antitachycardia pacing (ATP)/cardiac resynchronization (CRT) requirements. Reports of rates of S-ICD to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) system switch in real-world scenarios are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for a subsequent transvenous (TV) device in patients implanted with an S-ICD and its predictors.

METHODS

All patients implanted with an S-ICD were enrolled from the multicenter, real-world iSUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator) Registry. The need for a TV device and its clinical reason, and appropriate and inappropriate device therapies were assessed. Logistic regression with Firth penalization was used to assess the association between baseline and procedural characteristics and the overall need for a subsequent TV device.

RESULTS

A total of 1509 patients were enrolled (age 50.8 ± 15.8 years; 76.9% male; 32.0% ischemic; left ventricular ejection fraction 38% [30%-60%]). Over 26.5 [13.4-42.9] months, 155 (10.3%) and 144 (9.3%) patients experienced appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, respectively. Forty-one patients (2.7%) required a TV device (13 bradycardia; 10 need for CRT; 10 inappropriate shocks). Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were associated with need for a TV device (odds ratio [OR] 2.57 [1.37-4.81], P = .003; and OR 2.67 [1.29-5.54], P = .008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A low rate (2.7%) of conversion from S-ICD to a TV device was observed at follow-up, with need for antibradycardia pacing, ATP, or CRT being the main reasons. BMI >30 kg/m2 and CKD predicted all-cause need for a TV device.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The Times They Are a-Changin'

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at high risk of sudden cardiac death. The heterogeneity of clinical scenarios in HCM and the availability of ICDs with distinct characteristics emphasizes the need for selecting the right device for the right patient. There is growing awareness that unnecessarily complex devices can lead to short- and long-term complications without adding significant clinical benefits. Young patients have the greatest potential years of life gained from the ICD but are also most exposed to device-related complications. This increases the complexity of decision-making of ICD prescription in these often otherwise well patients in whom device selection should be tailored to preserve survival benefit without introducing morbidity. In the light of the multiple clinical phenotypes characterizing HCM, the present article offers evidence-based perspectives helpful in predicting the individual impact of the ICD and choosing the most appropriate device.

Acute shock efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator according to the implantation technique

BACKGROUND

The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted.

AIMS

We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique.

RESULTS

A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.

Is 40 Joules Enough to Successfully Defibrillate With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators?

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy of conversion test performed at 40 J (defibrillation margin ≥40 J), and factors potentially associated with test failure were identified.

BACKGROUND

Current subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices deliver a maximum of 80 J. Functional defibrillation testing is recommended at S-ICD implantation, and it is usually conducted by delivering a shock energy of 65 J to ensure a safety defibrillation margin ≥15 J. Although high rates of successful conversion were reported at 65 J, limited data exist on the defibrillation margin extent.

METHODS

Ventricular fibrillation was induced and conversion test was performed by delivering a 40-J shock in 308 patients. Success was defined as termination of ventricular fibrillation by the first shock delivered in standard polarity. The S-ICD system positioning was evaluated with the PRAETORIAN score using bidirectional chest X-rays.

RESULTS

The generator was positioned in an intermuscular pocket in 301 patients (98%) and the lead was implanted by means of a 2-incision technique. The PRAETORIAN score was <90 (low risk of conversion failure) in 293 (95%) patients. Overall, ventricular fibrillation termination occurred in 259 (84%) patients with 40 J. Male gender (odds ratio [OR]: 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 13.14; p = 0.036), body mass index (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.19; p = 0.036), dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.87; p = 0.019), and PRAETORIAN score >50 (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.26 to 6.83; p = 0.013) were independently associated with conversion failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors showed a high rate of defibrillation success with 40-J shocks in S-ICD systems implanted by means of modern surgical techniques. The variables associated with shock failure were male gender, higher body mass index, and suboptimal device position according to the PRAETORIAN score.

Implantation technique and optimal subcutaneous defibrillator chest position: a PRAETORIAN score-based study

Aims

The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous pocket. Recently, a two-incision and intermuscular (IM) technique has been adopted. The PRAETORIAN score is a chest radiograph-based tool that predicts S-ICD conversion testing. We assessed whether the S-ICD implantation technique affects optimal position of the defibrillation system according to the PRAETORIAN score.

Methods and results

We analysed consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. The χ2 test and regression analysis were used to determine the association between the PRAETORIAN score and implantation technique. Two hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled. The S-ICD generator was positioned in an IM pocket in 174 patients (81.7%) and the two-incision approach was adopted in 199 (93.4%). According to the PRAETORIAN score, the risk of conversion failure was classified as low in 198 patients (93.0%), intermediate in 13 (6.1%), and high in 2 (0.9%). Patients undergoing the two-incision and IM technique were more likely to have a low (&lt;90) PRAETORIAN score than those undergoing the three-incision and subcutaneous technique (two-incision: 94.0% vs. three-incision: 78.6%; P = 0.004 and IM: 96.0% vs. subcutaneous: 79.5%; P = 0.001). Intermuscular plus two-incision technique was associated with a low-risk PRAETORIAN score (hazard ratio 3.76; 95% confidence interval 1.01–14.02; P = 0.04). Shock impedance was lower in PRAETORIAN low-risk patients than in intermediate-/high-risk categories (66 vs. 96 Ohm; P = 0.001). The PRAETORIAN score did not predict shock failure at 65 J.

Conclusion

In this cohort of S-ICD recipients, combining the two-incision technique and IM generator implantation yielded the lowest PRAETORIAN score values, indicating optimal defibrillation system position.

Clinical trial registration

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ Identifier: NCT02275637.

State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

Within the last decade, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems with non-transvenous leads were developed in order to minimize complications related to the cardiovascular position of transvenous ICD leads. This national expert consensus gives an overview of potential indications for the implantation of non-transvenous ICD systems, and provides specific recommendations for implantation, follow-up, and complication management in patients with subcutaneous ICD. Regarding particular issues like the necessity for shock efficacy testing, or the clinical outcome as compared to transvenous ICD, randomized data are expected in the near future.

Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?

Since the publication of the SIMPLE and NORDIC trials, defibrillation testing (DFT) is rarely performed during routine implantation of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). However, the results of these trials cannot be extrapolated to the later introduced subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and a class I recommendation to perform DFT during the implantation of these devices remains in the current guidelines. Due to the high conversion success rate of DFT on one hand, and the risk of complications on the other, a significant number of physicians omit DFT in S‑ICD recipients. Several retrospective analyses have assessed the safety of the omission of DFT and report contradicting results and recommendations. It is known that implant position, as well as device factors and patient characteristics, influence defibrillation success. A better comprehension of these factors and their relationship could lead to more reliable and safer alternatives to DFT. An ongoing randomised clinical trial, which is expected to end in 2023, is the first study to implement a method that assesses implant position to identify patients who are likely to fail their DFT.

Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous one. Defibrillation efficacy depends on maximum device output and on the optimal device location at device implantation.

HYPOTHESIS

We sought to investigate the defibrillation safety margin in real life clinical practice.

METHODS

We sought to understand what is the efficacy of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) termination at S-ICD implantation using lower energies than the recommended 65 J.

RESULTS

Sixty-four consecutive S-ICD recipients underwent VF termination attempts at implantation with energies ranging from 20 to 50 J. Overall, VF termination occurred in 84% of patients with ≤40 J, in 88% with 45 J, and in 100% with 60 J. Intermuscular S-ICD placement was associated with 94% VF termination at ≤40 J. An ejection fraction <35% was associated to higher energy requirement for defibrillation; however, an intermuscular S-ICD placement conferred 90% defibrillation efficacy at 31 ± 5 J in this patients subset.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a hypothesis-generating observation that prompts a methodologically correct investigation to prove that a 60 J output S-ICD can provide an adequate safety margin to terminate VF in clinical practice. This would enable superior device longevity and/or device downsizing for pediatric/small size patients.