Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children and adolescents: results from the S-ICD "Monaldi care" registry

Congenital Long QT Syndrome in Children and Adolescents: A General Overview

Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) represents a disorder of myocardial repolarization characterized by a prolongation of QTc interval on ECG, which can degenerate into fast polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias. The typical symptoms of LQTS are syncope and palpitations, mainly triggered by adrenergic stimuli, but it can also manifest with cardiac arrest. At least 17 genotypes have been associated with LQTS, with a specific genotype-phenotype relationship described for the three most common subtypes (LQTS1, -2, and -3). β-Blockers are the first-line therapy for LQTS, even if the choice of the appropriate patients needing to be treated may be challenging. In specific cases, interventional measures, such as an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or left cardiac sympathetic denervation (LCSD), are useful. The aim of this review is to highlight the current state-of-the-art knowledge on LQTS, providing an updated picture of possible diagnostic algorithms and therapeutic management.

Complications and inappropriate shocks in pediatric patients receiving a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrilator

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is limited evidence regarding the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of complications in these patients at our center, according to the type of ICD and patient size.

METHODS

We included all patients aged<18 years who received an S-ICD since 2016 at our center. As a control group, we also included contemporary patients (since 2014) who received a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). The primary endpoint was a composite of complications and inappropriate shocks.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients received an S-ICD (median age, 14 [5-17] years; body mass index [BMI], 20.2 kg/m2). Implantation was intermuscular in 23 patients (88%) and subserratus in the remainder. Two incisions were used in 24 patients (92%). In all patients, 2 zones were programmed: a conditional zone set at 230 (220-230) bpm, and a shock zone set at 250 bpm. Nineteen patients received a TV-ICD (median age, 11 [range, 5-16] years; BMI, 19.2 kg/m2, 79% single-chamber). Survival free from the primary endpoint at 5 years was 80% in the S-ICD group and 63% in the TV-ICD group (P=.54). Survival free from inappropriate shocks was similar (85% vs 89%, P=.86), while survival free from complications was higher in the S-ICD group (96% vs 57%, cloglog P=.016). There were no therapy failures in the S-ICD group, and no increased complication rates were observed in patients with BMI ≤20 kg/m2.

CONCLUSIONS

With contemporary implantation techniques and programming, S-ICD is a safe and effective therapy in pediatric patients. The number of inappropriate shocks is similar to TV-ICD, with fewer short- and mid-term complications.

New Guidelines of Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What Is Changing in Clinical Practice?

Guidelines are important tools to guide the diagnosis and treatment of patients to improve the decision-making process of health professionals. They are periodically updated according to new evidence. Four new Guidelines in 2021, 2022 and 2023 referred to pediatric pacing and defibrillation. There are some relevant changes in permanent pacing. In patients with atrioventricular block, the heart rate limit in which pacemaker implantation is recommended was decreased to reduce too-early device implantation. However, it was underlined that the heart rate criterion is not absolute, as signs or symptoms of hemodynamically not tolerated bradycardia may even occur at higher rates. In sinus node dysfunction, symptomatic bradycardia is the most relevant recommendation for pacing. Physiological pacing is increasingly used and recommended when the amount of ventricular pacing is presumed to be high. New recommendations suggest that loop recorders may guide the management of inherited arrhythmia syndromes and may be useful for severe but not frequent palpitations. Regarding defibrillator implantation, the main changes are in primary prevention recommendations. In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, pediatric risk calculators have been included in the Guidelines. In dilated cardiomyopathy, due to the rarity of sudden cardiac death in pediatric age, low ejection fraction criteria were demoted to class II. In long QT syndrome, new criteria included severely prolonged QTc with different limits according to genotype, and some specific mutations. In arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia and arrhythmic syncope were downgraded to class II recommendation. In conclusion, these new Guidelines aim to assess all aspects of cardiac implantable electronic devices and improve treatment strategies.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are being used with increased frequency in children and patients with congenital heart disease. Vascular access complexities, intracardiac shunts, and specific anatomies make these devices particularly appealing for some of these patients. Alternative screening, implantation, and programming techniques should be considered based on patient size, body habitus, anatomy, procedural history, and preference. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates are generally comparable to those seen with transvenous devices. Complications such as infection can occur, although their severity is likely to be less than that seen with transvenous devices. Technical advances are likely to further broaden S-ICD applicability.

Emerging Technologies for the Smallest Patients

Pediatric and congenital heart disease patients may require cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, inclusive of pacemaker, ICD, and implantable cardiac monitor, for a variety of etiologies. While leads, generators, and monitors have decreased in size over the years, they remain less ideal for the smallest patients. The potential for a miniature pacemaker, fetal micropacemaker, improving leadless technology, and rechargeable devices creates hope that the development of pediatric-focused devices will increase. Further, alternative approaches that avoid the need for a transvenous or surgical approach may add more options to the toolbox for the pediatric and congenital electrophysiologist.

Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker implantation for patients at high risk of infection: a retrospective case series report

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP) are alternative options for patients at high risk of infection requiring ICD and pacing therapy. In this analysis, we described the simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP in patients with high infectious risk.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised patients referred to our institution for ICD implantation due to high-risk factors of infection.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 13 patients were referred, including 11 with infected ICD and 2 for first ICD implantation in the presence of high-risk factors. In cases of infected ICD, successful extraction was performed using a mechanical dilatation technique. Reimplantation was delayed until resolution of infection with antibiotic therapy. The devices were implanted during a single procedure, with S-ICD implantation following LP placement for verification of sensing adequacy through surface ECG screening. Suitable vectors for sensing during inhibited and ventricular pacing were identified in all patients. Defibrillation testing was effective, and no issues with double counting or undersensing were observed. The postoperative period was uneventful, and during a median follow-up of 35 months, no complications or infections were reported. The median ventricular pacing percentage was 5%, and a single inappropriate shock episode due to myopotential interference was reported and resolved by reprogramming the sensing vector.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP is feasible and safe in patients at high risk of infection requiring both ICD and pacing therapy. This combined approach provides an effective solution for these patients.

Combined subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker devices in complex congenital heart disease: a single-center experienced based study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) are widely accepted therapy in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death (SCD) when pacing is not required. Occasionally, pacemaker (PM)-dependent CHD patients will subsequently develop an indication for a cardioverter defibrillator. The use of S-ICD in complex CHD patients who have had already PM devices implanted implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients in unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely.

METHODS

We review the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in complex CHD with previous PM and discuss its usefulness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

From a large cohort of 345 patients enrolled in the S-ICD Monaldi care registry, which encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 11 consecutive complex CHD patients (10M/1F aged 40.4 ±18.4 years) who underwent S-ICD implant after a previous PM implant, from February 2015 to October 2022. Mean follow-up was 25.5 ± 22 months. All the patients showed a good compliance to the device system with no complications (infections or skin erosions).

CONCLUSIONS

In complex CHD with already implanted PM devices, S-ICD implant appears to be a safe alternative to PM upgrading to transvenous ICD system, avoiding abandoned leads or life-threatening lead extraction. However, there are important issues with regard to testing and programming that need to be addressed at the time of implantation.

Low Risk of Inappropriate Shock Among Pediatric Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Single Center Experience

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are increasingly being used among the pediatric population for indications of both primary and secondary prevention. There is limited long-term data on the outcomes of pediatric patients following ICD implantation. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of this population, burden of appropriate and inappropriate shock and complication rate in a large tertiary pediatric medical center. Included were children under the age of 18 years who underwent ICD implantation and had clinical follow up at our center. Data were retrospectively collected between study period 2005-2020. Primary outcome was the incidence of ICD shock appropriate and inappropriate. Secondary outcome was defining our patient population characteristics. Our cohort included 51 patients who underwent ICD implantation. Mean age at implantation was 10.9 ± 4.7 years and average follow-up time was 67 months. Diagnoses of implanted patients were: 28 (55%) patients with syndromes with risk for sudden death, cardiomyopathy in 14 patients (27%) and congenital heart disease (CHD) in 9 patients (18%). Forty-two (82%) patients had an ICD implanted for secondary prevention after experiencing a life-threatening arrhythmia and 9 (18%) for primary prevention. An endocardial system was implanted in 39 (76%) patients and an epicardial systems in 12 (24%) patients. A total of 20 (39%) patients received appropriate shocks for ventricular fibrillation(VF). 5 patients received inappropriate shocks, 4 due to sinus tachycardia and 1 due to rapidly conducted atrial fibrillation. Those who received an inappropriate shock had a significantly shorter ICD-programmed VF detection cycle length compared to those who did not receive an inappropriate shock (320 ms versus 270 ms, p = 0.062). This single center study demonstrates a high rate of appropriate ICD shocks (39%) and a low rate of inappropriate ICD shocks. Accurate programming of ICD devices in the pediatric population is paramount to avoid inappropriate ICD shocks.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Contemporary Overview

The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.

Efficacy of SubcutAneous implantable cardioVErter-defibrillators in ≤18 year-old CHILDREN: SAVE-CHILDREN registry

BACKGROUND

In adult patients, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been reported to be non-inferior to transvenous ICDs with respect to the incidence of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. Only a few reports have investigated the efficacy of S-ICDs in the pediatric field. This study aimed to investigate the utility and safety of S-ICDs in patients ≤18 years old.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, observational, retrospective study on S-ICD implantations. Patients <18 years old who underwent S-ICD implantations were enrolled. The detailed data on the device implantations and eligibility tests, incidence of appropriate- and inappropriate shocks, and follow-up data were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were enrolled from 30 centers. The patients ranged in age from 3 to 18 (median 14 years old [IQR 11.0-16.0 years]). During a median follow up of 27 months (13.3-35.8), a total of 16 patients (26.2%) received appropriate shocks and 13 (21.3%) received inappropriate shocks. The common causes of the inappropriate shocks were sinus tachycardia (n = 4, 30.8%) and T-wave oversensing (n = 4, 30.8%). In spite of the physical growth, the number of suitable sensing vectors did not change during the follow up. No one had any lead fractures or device infections in the chronic phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that S-ICDs can prevent sudden cardiac death in the pediatric population with a low incidence of lead complications or device infections. The number of suitable sensing vectors did not change during the patients' growth.

Implantable Loop Recorder with Long Sensing Vector: Safety, Acceptability, and Sensing Performance in Pediatric Patients

Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are effective tools for detecting arrhythmias by long-term continuous heart rhythm monitoring. Benefits have been demonstrated even in pediatric patients. ILR with a long sensing vector has recently been designed to improve signal quality in terms of P wave visibility and R wave amplitude. However, there are no data on its use in pediatric patients. We considered a series of pediatric patients implanted with a long sensing vector ILR. Sensing performance, including R wave amplitude and P wave visibility, device-related complications, and diagnostic yield were collected. During follow-up, each patient guided by his/her parents/guardians was also asked to complete a brief questionnaire to assess patient acceptability of the device. Twenty-five consecutive pediatric patients (mean age 11.3 ± 3.5 years, 72% male) were enrolled. The insertion success rate was 100% on the first attempt with no complications. The median amplitude of the R wave was 1.15 mV (interquartile range, 1.01-1.42) with no significant differences between patients aged ≤ or > 10 years (p = 0.726) and between female and male (p = 0.483). P wave was classified as 'always visible' in 24/25 patients (96%). ILR was generally well accepted and tolerated by all involved patients. During a median follow-up of 297 days (117-317), we achieved in 5 patients a correlation between symptoms and rhythm disorders (20%) and ruled out significant arrhythmias in 6 symptomatic children (24%). Long sensing vector ILR showed to be well accepted, with good signal quality and an excellent safety profile even in pediatric patients.

The SIDECAR project: S-IcD registry in European paediatriC and young Adult patients with congenital heaRt defects

AIMS

Subcutaneous-implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are used increasingly to prevent sudden cardiac death in young patients. This study was set up to gain insight in the indications for S-ICD, possible complications, and their predictors and follow-up results.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A multicentre, observational, retrospective, non-randomized, standard-of-care registry on S-ICD outcome in young patients with congenital heart diseases (CHDs), inherited arrhythmias (IAs), idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF), and cardiomyopathies (CMPs). Anthropometry was registered as well as implantation technique, mid-term device-related complications, and incidence of appropriate/inappropriate shocks (IASs). Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or mean ± standard deviation. Eighty-one patients (47% CMPs, 20% CHD, 21% IVF, and 12% IA), aged 15 (14-17) years, with body mass index (BMI) 21.8 ± 3.8 kg/m2, underwent S-ICD implantation (primary prevention in 59%). This was performed with two-incision technique in 81% and with a subcutaneous pocket in 59%. Shock and conditional zones were programmed at 250 (200-250) and 210 (180-240) b.p.m., respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred. Follow up was 19 (6-35) months: no defibrillation failure occurred, 17% of patients received appropriate shocks, 13% of patients received IAS (supraventricular tachycardias 40%, T-wave oversensing 40%, and non-cardiac oversensing 20%). Reprogramming, proper drug therapy, and surgical revision avoided further IAS. Complications requiring surgical revision occurred in 9% of patients, with higher risks in patients with three-incision procedures [hazard ratio (HR) 4.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.5-34, P = 0.038] and BMI < 20 (HR 5.1, 95% CI 1-24, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre European paediatric registry showed good S-ICD efficacy and safety in young patients. Newer implantation techniques and BMI > 20 showed better outcome.

Transvenous or subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a review to aid decision-making

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a proven treatment for preventing sudden cardiac death. Transvenous leads are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, and the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) addresses this. However, it is not without limitations, in particular the absence of anti-tachycardia pacing. The decision of which device is most suitable for an individual patient is often complex. Here, we review the relative merits and weaknesses of both the transvenous and S-ICD. We summarise the available evidence for each device in particular patient cohorts, namely: ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, Brugada syndrome, long QT syndrome, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.