Rationale and design of the randomized prospective ATLAS study: Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects

Transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in young cardiac arrest survivors

Secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are indicated in young patients presenting with aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD) because of ventricular arrhythmias. Transvenous-ICDs (TV-ICDs) are effective, established therapies supported by evidence. The significant morbidity associated with transvenous leads led to the development of the newer subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). This review discusses the clinical considerations when selecting an ICD for the young patient presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The major benefits of TV-ICDs are their ability to pace (antitachycardia pacing [ATP], bradycardia support and cardiac resynchronisation therapy [CRT]) and the robust evidence base supporting their use. Other benefits include a longer battery life. Significant complications associated with transvenous leads include pneumothorax and tamponade during insertion and infection and lead failure in the long term. Comparatively, S-ICDs, by virtue of having no intravascular leads, prevent these complications. S-ICDs have been associated with a higher incidence of inappropriate shocks. Patients with an indication for bradycardia pacing, CRT or ATP (documented ventricular tachycardia) are seen as unsuitable for a S-ICD. If venous access is unsuitable or undesirable, S-ICDs should be considered given the patient is appropriately screened. There is a need for further randomised controlled trials to directly compare the two devices. TV-ICDs are an effective therapy for preventing SCD limited by significant lead-related complications. S-ICDs are an important development hindered largely by an inability to pace. Young patients stand to gain the most from a S-ICD as the cumulative risk of lead-related complications is high. A clinical framework to aid decision-making is presented.

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications.

OBJECTIVE

To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia).

DESIGN

Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255).

SETTING

The ATLAS trial.

PATIENTS

544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035).

LIMITATION

At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Boston Scientific.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD).

Objective

The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population.

Methods

The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD (n = 35) or TV-ICD (n = 84) implantation at the University Hospital Frankfurt from 2009 to 2017. By applying an inverse probability-weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to adjust for potential extracardiac comorbidities, we aimed for head-to-head comparison on the study composite endpoint: overall survival, hospitalization, and device-associated events (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks or system-related complications).

Results

The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II–III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD (p = 0.209) indicating increased morbidity. The composite endpoint occurred in 38 patients (31.9 %), revealing no significant difference between patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD (unweighted HR 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78–2.90; p = 0.229, weighted HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.61–1.50, p = 0.777). Furthermore, we observed no difference in any single clinical endpoint or device-associated outcome, neither in the unweighted cohort nor following inverse probability-weighting.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD patients.

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies

Background

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published.

Methods and Results

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P=0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P<0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P=0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities.

Conclusions

S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Defibrillator Use in Sports

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in young athletes is rare, with an estimated incidence ranging from 0.1 to 2 per 100,000 per athlete year. The creation of SCA registries can help provide accurate data regarding incidence, treatment, and outcomes and help implement primary or secondary prevention strategies that could change the course of these events. Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation are the most important determinants of survival and neurological prognosis in individuals who suffer from SCA. Compared with the general population, individuals with clinically silent cardiac disease who practice regular physical exercise are at increased risk of SCA events. While the implementation of national preparticipation screening has been largely debated, with no current consensus, the number of athletes who will be diagnosed with cardiac disease and have an indication for implantable defibrillator cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is unknown. Many victims of SCA do not have a previous cardiac diagnosis. Therefore, the appropriate use and availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in public spaces is the crucial part of the integrated response to prevent these fatalities both for participating athletes and for spectators. Governments and sports institutions should invest and educate members of the public, security, and healthcare professionals in immediate initiation of CPR and early AED use. Smartphone apps could play an integral part to allow bystanders to alert the emergency services and CPR trained responders and locate and utilize the nearest AED to positively influence the outcomes by strengthening the chain of survival. This review aims to summarize the available evidence on sudden cardiac death prevention among young athletes and to provide some guidance on strategies that can be implemented by governments and on the novel tools that can help save these lives.

Rate and impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization of complications requiring surgical revision: Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy

INTRODUCTION

Comparison data on management of device-related complications and their impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. We designed this prospective, multicentre, observational registry to compare the rate, nature, and impact of long-term device-related complications requiring surgical revision on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between patients undergoing S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1099 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 169 matched pairs. Rate, nature, management, and impact on patient outcome of device-related complications were analyzed and compared between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 30 months, device-related complications requiring surgical revision were observed in 20 patients: 3 in S-ICD group (1.8%) and 17 in TV-ICD group (10.1%; p = .002). Compared with TV-ICD patients, S-ICD patients showed a significantly lower risk of lead-related complications (0% vs. 5.9%; p = .002) and a similar risk of pocket-related complications (0.6 vs. 2.4; p = .215) and device infection (0.6% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.000). Complications observed in S-ICD patients resulted in a significantly lower number of complications-related rehospitalizations (median 0 vs. 1; p = .013) and additional hospital treatment days (1.0 ± 1.0 vs. 6.5 ± 4.4 days; p = .048) compared with TV-ICD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TV-ICD, S-ICD is associated with a lower risk of complications, mainly due to a lower risk of lead-related complications. The management of S-ICD complications requires fewer and shorter rehospitalizations.

Dutch Outcome in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy: Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator-Related Complications in a Contemporary Primary Prevention Cohort

Background

One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria.

Methods and Results

Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator. During a follow‐up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0–2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead‐related (n=47) and pocket‐related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications.

Conclusions

One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator–related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms.

Methods:

Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points.

Results:

S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%.

Conclusions:

This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379.

Diagnosis and management of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections based on process mapping

BACKGROUND

Infection is a well-recognized complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, including the more recently available subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). Although the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S-ICD use, currently there are no clinical trial data that address the diagnosis and management of S-ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus on these topics.

METHODS

A process mapping methodology was used to achieve a primary goal - the development of consensus on the diagnosis and management of S-ICD infections. Two face-to-face meetings of panel experts were conducted to recommend useful information to clinicians in individual patient management of S-ICD infections.

RESULTS

Panel consensus of a stepwise approach in the diagnosis and management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management.

CONCLUSION

Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology in S-ICD infection diagnosis and management was attainable, and the results should be helpful in individual patient management.

Endocardial transvenous pacing in patients with surgically palliated univentricular hearts: A review on different techniques, problems and management

Fontan surgery and its modifications have improved survival in various forms of univentricular hearts. A regular atrial rhythm with atrioventricular synchrony is one of the most important prerequisite for the long-term effective functioning of this preload dependent circulation. A significant proportion of these survivors need various forms of pacing for bradyarrhythmias, often due to sinus nodal dysfunction and sometimes due to atrioventricular nodal block. The diversion of the venous flows away from the cardiac chambers following this surgery takes away the simpler endocardial pacing options through the superior vena cava. The added risks of thromboembolism associated with endocardial leads in systemic ventricles have made epicardial pacing as the procedure of choice. However challenges in epicardial pacing include surgical adhesions, increased pacing thresholds leading to early battery depletion and frequent lead fractures. When epicardial pacing fails, endocardial lead placement is equally challenging due to lack of access to the cardiac chambers in Fontan circulation. This review discusses the univentricular heart morphologies that may warrant pacing, issues about epicardial pacing, different techniques for endocardial pacing in patients with disconnected superior vena cava, pacing in different modifications of Fontan surgeries, issues of systemic thromboembolism with endocardial leads, atrioventricular valve regurgitation attributed to pacing leads and device infections. In a vast majority of patients following Glenn shunt and Senning surgery, an epicardial pacing and lead replacement is always feasible though technically very difficult. This article highlights the different options of transatrial and transventricular endocardial pacing.

•

Fontan surgery prolongs the mean survival of patients with univentricular hearts beyond 30 years.

•

9-20% of survivors need permanent pacing for bradyarrhythmias.

•

Epicardial pacing is preferred as the first choice for permanent pacemaker.

•

There is 20-40% failure of permanent pacing at 10 years due to high threshold, lead fractures.

•

Repeated epicardial pacing with surgical revisions are difficult.

•

Endocardial pacing involves special techniques.

•

Manoeuvring through fenestrations,venous collaterals, hepatic veins, pulmonary valve or hybrid peratrial routes is needed.

•

Systemic thromboembolism, endocarditis and systemic AV valve regurgitation should be prevented by meticulously measures.