Outcome differences and device performance of the subcutaneous ICD in patients with and without structural heart disease

Validation of the PRAETORIAN score in a large subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator collective: Usefulness in clinical routine

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of unsuccessful conversion of ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation testing (DFT) with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the PRAETORIAN score has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to validate the PRAETORIAN score in a large S-ICD collective.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of S-ICD patients receiving intraoperative DFT was performed. DFT was performed using a stepwise protocol with 65-J standard polarity, change of polarity, increase to 80 J, and repositioning if necessary. If all DFTs failed, we switched to a transvenous ICD.

RESULTS

Overall, 398 patients were analyzed (268 male [67.3%]; mean age 42.4 ± 15.9 years; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2). Successful DFT with the first ICD shock was observed in 264 patients (66.3%). One hundred fourteen patients were defibrillated with the second (n = 104) or third (n = 10) DFT after changing shock polarity and/or shock energy. Overall, 20 patients needed at least 3 DFT (ie, 80 J and/or re-positioning). The majority (n = 88 [65.7%]) of DFT failures occurred before 2015 with the first-generation S-ICD. PRAETORIAN score was an independent predictor of DFT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.007; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.011 P ≤.001), while whereas BMI alone was not (P = .31). Presence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = .004) was predictive for at least 1 unsuccessful DFT in our multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

PRAETORIAN score proved to be a useful and valid predictive tool for successful DFT, whereas BMI only had a limited role. Patients with HCM were at increased risk for DFT failure or needed higher DFT energy.

Usefulness of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in a Large Mixed Patient Cohort of Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Background: Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current guidelines. To help evaluate a patient’s individual risk, a new score to predict the benefit of an implantable defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, has recently been proposed. The score tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death based on data from four previous MADIT trials. We aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single-center register of S-ICD patients with various underlying cardiomyopathies. Methods and results: All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single-center database were included in the analysis (n = 173). During a follow-up of 1227 ± 978 days, 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. There was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n = 29, p = 0.04) to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia. However, the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score (p = 0.3) in patients with (n = 142, p = 0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n = 31, p = 0.88) and patients with LV-EF < 35%. Of the risk factors included in the risk score calculation, only non-sustained ventricular tachycardias were significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score (p = 0.001, r = 0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI < 23 kg/m2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score. Conclusion: The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. In a large S-ICD cohort of primary prevention, the value of the score was limited to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Future research should evaluate the performance of the score in different subgroups and compare it to other risk scores to assess its value for daily clinical practice.

Evaluation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator performance in patients with ion channelopathies from the EFFORTLESS cohort and comparison with a meta-analysis of transvenous ICD outcomes

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy to reduce lead complications.

Objective

To evaluate outcomes in channelopathy vs patients with structural heart disease in the EFFORTLESS-SICD Registry and with a previously reported TV-ICD meta-analysis in channnelopathies.

Methods

The EFFORTLESS registry includes 199 patients with channelopathies (Brugada syndrome 83, long QT syndrome 24, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation 78, others 14) and 786 patients with structural heart disease.

Results

Channelopathy patients were younger (39 ± 14 years vs 51 ± 17 years; P < .001) with left ventricular ejection fraction 59% ± 9% vs 41% ± 18% (P < .001). The complication rate (follow-up: 3.2 ± 1.5 years vs 3.0 ± 1.5 years) was similar: 13.6% vs 11.2% (P = .42). Appropriate shocks rates were 9.5% vs 10.8% (P = .70), with shocks for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia being 2.0% vs 6.9% (P < .02) and for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) 8.0% vs 5.7% (P = .30). Conversion effectiveness of VT/VF episodes was similar: 36 of 37 (97.3%) vs 151 of 155 (97.4%, P = .59). VT/VF storm event (2% vs 0.9%, P = .33) and lower inappropriate shock (IAS) (8.5% vs 12.5%, P = .12) rates were statistically similar between channelopathy and non-channelopathy patients, with 45.5% channelopathy vs 31.4% non-channelopathy patients managed with a conditional zone > 200 beats per minute (P = .0002). Annualized appropriate shock, IAS, and complication rates appear to be lower for the S-ICD vs meta-analysis TV-ICD patients, particularly lead complications.

Conclusion

EFFORTLESS demonstrates similar S-ICD efficacy and a nonsignificant, lower rate of IAS in channelopathy patients as compared to structural heart disease. Comparable IAS rates were achieved with the device programmed to higher rates for channelopathy patients.

Pitfalls of the S-ICD therapy: experiences from a large tertiary centre

Aim

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) has evolved to a potential first option for many patients who have to be protected from sudden cardiac death. Many trials have underlined a similar performance regarding its effectiveness in relation to transvenous ICDs and have shown the expected benefits concerning infective endocarditis and lead failure. However, there have also been problems due to the peculiarities of the device, such as oversensing and myopotentials. In this study, we present patients from a large tertiary centre suffering from complications with an S-ICD and propose possible solutions.

Methods and results

All S-ICD patients who experienced complications related to the device (n = 40) of our large-scale single-centre S-ICD registry (n = 351 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, complications occurring and solutions to these problems were documented over a mean follow-up of 50 months. In most cases (n = 23), patients suffered from oversensing (18 cases with T wave or P wave oversensing, 5 due to myopotentials). Re-programming successfully prevented further oversensing episode in 13/23 patients. In 9 patients, generator or lead-related complications, mostly due to infectious reasons (5/9), occurred. Further problems consisted of ineffective shocks in one patient and need for antibradycardia stimulation in 2 patients and indication for CRT in 2 other patients. In total, the S-ICD had to be extracted in 10 patients. 7 of them received a tv-ICD subsequently, 3 patients refused re-implantation of any ICD. One other patient kept the ICD but had antitachycardic therapy deactivated due to inappropriate shocks for myopotential oversensing.

Conclusion

The S-ICD is a valuable option for many patients for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Nonetheless, certain problems are immanent to the S-ICD (limited re-programming options, size of the generator) and should be addressed in future generations of the S-ICD.

Graphic abstract