A Comparison of the Quality of Life of Patients With an Entirely Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator System Versus a Transvenous System (from the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Quality of Life Substudy)

Assessment of Psychological Implications and Quality of Life After Different Cardiac Device Implantation in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Cardiac device therapy is likely to affect different aspects of patients' psychological well-being, such as their quality of life. The aim of this study was to examine the mental health status, specifically the conditions of depression and anxiety regarding implantable cardiac device patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted in January 2022. This study was conducted at King Abdul-Aziz University Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. All patients aged more than 18 years old who underwent heart device implantation for six months or more formed the study population. A total of 30 implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) subtypes were used in our patients (45.8%), including cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT-D) in seven patients (14.6%) and one subcutaneous ICD (2.1%). A pacemaker was used in 18 patients (37.5%). Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the association between type of cardiac implantation device and the likelihood of having abnormal depression and anxiety score.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients participated in this study. Hypertension was the most frequently associated risk factor in our sample (64.6%; n=31). In comparison between ICD users and pacemaker users in terms of the SF-36 general health survey, a marginally significant difference was noted in the role of limitations due to emotional health (63 ± 28.6) for ICD patients compared to pacemaker patients (81.8 ± 28.1), (p=0.050). However, pacemaker patients showed a significant favourable social functioning score (90.1 ± 17.7) compared to ICD patients (71.5 ± 19), (p=0.001). There is no significant difference noted regarding the other domains. Binary logistic regression analysis identified that patients who are using ICD were seven times more likely to have abnormal anxiety score (odds ratio: 7.00 (95% confidence interval: 1.36-35.9) (p=0.020).

CONCLUSION

This study identified a potential association between cardiac devices and the anxiety and quality of life of patients. Nonetheless, further investigation is warranted to assess the psychological and physiological effects of cardiac device therapy on patients, in addition to examining the effects of implantation and follow-up on cardiac function and cardiac symptoms.

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.

The Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Patient Perspective

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new technology for the management of ICD patients. But what is the patients' perspective? Previous studies on the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) showed that device implantation is related not only to anxiety and depression because of the fear of ICD shocks, but also to many biopsychosocial factors like body image changes, perceived reduction of socialization and limitation in professional and sports activities. Anxiety and distress are more evident in younger women because of aesthetic reasons. The scar size and the position of the S-ICD can help these patients and positively influence their social relationships. Moreover, the position of the S-ICD reduces possible complications from catheters due to stress injury and can improve patients' professional life by avoiding some work activity limitations. An S-ICD can be also a good option for athletes in avoiding subclavian crash and reducing inappropriate shocks. However, some questions remain unsolved because an S-ICD is not suitable for patients with indications for pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy or anti-tachycardia pacing. In conclusion, the use of an S-ICD can assist physicians in reducing the negative impact of implantation on the well-being of some groups of patients by helping them to avoid depression and anxiety as well as improving their noncompliance with their medical treatment.

Opportunities and drawbacks of the subcutaneous defibrillator across different clinical settings

INTRODUCTION

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an established therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system in selected patients. Beyond randomized clinical trials, many observational studies have described the clinical performance of S-ICD across different subgroups of patients.

AREAS COVERED

Our review aimed to describe the opportunities and drawbacks of the S-ICD, focusing on their use in special populations and across different clinical settings.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice to implant S-ICD should be based on the patient's tailored approach, which takes into account the adequate S-ICD screening at rest or during stress, the infective risk, the ventricular arrhythmia susceptibility, the progressive nature of the underlying disease, the work or sports activity, and the risk of lead-related complications.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator at risk of poorer psychological health during 24 months of follow-up (results from the Danish national DEFIB-WOMEN study)

OBJECTIVE

Identify implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients at risk of distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, and ICD concerns) and associated risk factors.

METHOD

First-time ICD patients (n = 1503) from the Danish national DEFIB-WOMEN study completed questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

Of patients with low scores on distress, only 4%-7.2% experienced an increase in distress during 24 months of follow-up (FU), while 30.5%-52.5% with increased levels were likely to maintain increased levels at FU. Higher education, higher age, female sex, and good physical functioning at baseline were associated with less depression, anxiety and ICD concerns at FU. Previous psychological problems, smoking, Type D personality, NYHA class III-IV - all assessed at baseline - and shocks during FU were associated with depression, anxiety and ICD concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, patients' psychological health improved, but patients with increased baseline scores were more likely to have increased scores at FU. We need to be vigilant if patients report elevated distress, particularly if they have depression at baseline, as depression seems more persistent. Given the impact of depression on health-related quality of life and prognosis, they should be screened and monitored closely.

Development of a patient and clinician co-led education program to promote living well with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Insights from a pilot project

Objective

To evaluate a pilot education program designed to improve patients' experience of living well with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

Methods

Patient Partners with previously implanted ICD and clinicians collaboratively performed monthly education sessions for potential and recent ICD recipients. Curriculum development was informed by current evidence of ICD patients' unique educational needs; delivery format transitioned to a virtual platform following the onset of COVID-19. Participants' experience was evaluated using a tailored questionnaire to explore preliminary insights.

Results

126 participants (median age: 62 years; women: 30%) attended 24 sessions. In-person participants (n = 62, 49.2%) reported sessions as helpful (n = 56, 94%) with regards to format and Patient Partner interactions. Virtual participants 64 (50.8%) completed an electronic survey (n = 27, 45%); reporting sufficient information for most topics with the exception of potential psychological effects of ICD implantation. Patient Partners as collaborative session leaders was perceived to be very helpful (n = 22, 82%) or somewhat helpful (n = 5, 18%).

Conclusion

This novel educational partnership met the learning needs of patients at the vulnerable time of new cardiac device implantation of both in-person and virtual formats.

Innovation

The inclusion of Patient Partners in co-led cardiac education informs novel approach to care that may improve patients' experiences of living well with complex technology.

The Impact of Cardiac Devices on Patients’ Quality of Life—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The implantation of cardiac devices significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Arrhythmias as well as therapy delivered by the device may impact quality of life of patients concerned considerably. Therefore we aimed at conducting a systematic search and meta-analysis of trials examining the impact of the implantation of cardiac devices, namely implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), pacemakers and left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) on quality of life. After pre-registering the trial with the PROSPERO database, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases for relevant publications. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using standardized protocols. A total of 37 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 trials were cohort trials while 6 trials used a randomized controlled design. We found large pre-post effect sizes for positive associations between quality of life and all types of devices. The effect sizes for LVAD, pacemaker and ICD patients were g = 1.64, g = 1.32 and g = 0.64, respectively. There was a lack of trials examining the effect of implantation on quality of life relative to control conditions. Trials assessing quality of life in patients with cardiac devices are still scarce. Yet, the existing data suggest beneficial effects of cardiac devices on quality of life. We recommend that clinical trials on cardiac devices routinely assess quality of life or other parameters of psychological well-being as a decisive study endpoint. Furthermore, improvements in psychological well-being should influence decisions about implantations of cardiac devices and be part of patient education and may impact shared decision-making.

Subcutaneous and Transvenous ICDs: an Update on Contemporary Questions and Controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the subcutaneous (S-) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs) is an alternative to the transvenous (TV-) ICD in many patients, optimal use remains unclear. In this review, we summarize recent clinically relevant data on sensing algorithms, inappropriate shocks, defibrillation testing, and battery and electrode failures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Changes in sensing algorithms and S-ICD programming have significantly decreased inappropriate shock rates. Avoiding fat below the S-ICD coil and can is key for reducing the defibrillation threshold. While S-ICD battery and electrode failures have resulted in recalls, system components remain commercially available since failure rates are low and no other similar devices are available. The S-ICD is a good alternative to the TV-ICD for many patients, and particularly in light of recently developed device algorithms and improvements in implant technique. Future research will need to better understand: the impact of S-ICD electrode and battery failures and the potential for integrating leadless pacing into a modular S-ICD platform.

Comparative Assessment of Transvenous versus Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Therapy Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous (S-ICD) and transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices effectively reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients at a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. This study aimed to evaluate the safe replacement of TV-ICD with S-ICD based on updated recent evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, JSTOR, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library on 30 July 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies that examined 7542 (58.27%) patients with S-ICD and 5400 (41.72%) with TV-ICD. The findings indicated that, compared to patients with TV-ICD, patients with S-ICD had a lower incidence of defibrillation lead failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.98; p = 0.05), lead displacement or fracture (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; p = 0.0003), pneumothorax and/or hemothorax (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.97, p = 0.05), device failure (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.95, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.44 [95% CI 0.32, 0.60], p < 0.001), and lead erosion (OR: 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.001). Patients with TV-ICD had a higher incidence of pocket complications than patients with S-ICD (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.23-3.69; p = 0.007) and a higher but insignificant incidence of inappropriate sensing (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.97-12.86; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The S-ICD algorithm was safer and more effective than the TV-ICD system as it minimized the incidence of pocket complications, lead displacement or fracture, inappropriate sensing, defibrillation lead failure, pneumothorax/hemothorax, device failure, lead erosion, and all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the scope of integrating novel algorithms with the current S-ICD systems to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Patient acceptance of subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator systems: A multi-center experience

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD.

METHODS

Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation.

RESULTS

176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Defibrillators for Asymptomatic Brugada Syndrome: A Decision-Analytic Model

Background

Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain.

Methods and Results

We developed an individual‐level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average‐risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)‐guided implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural‐related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost‐effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS‐guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD‐based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20–39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS‐guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5–51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%–1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD was cost‐effective ($80 508/QALY).

Conclusions

Device‐based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.

Comparative Study between Subcutaneous and Endovascular Defibrillator Recipients Regarding Tolerance to the Implant Procedure and Perception of Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The totally subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a safe alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) system to prevent sudden death.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of the type of ICD system and surgical technique on patients' quality of life, as well as the severity of discomfort and pain, between S-ICD and TV-ICD recipients.

METHODS

Consecutively implanted patients with an S-ICD system were matched with patients with a TV-ICD system. In addition, patients undergoing S-ICD implantation after removal of a TV-ICD due to complications were included. Quality of life (measured with the 12-item short-form health survey) and severity of pain and discomfort were evaluated. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients implanted with S-ICD or TV-ICD under local anesthesia and conscious sedation were analyzed. Patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD systems did not differ significantly in quality of life scores. S-ICD patients had a higher level of perioperative pain; no differences were found regarding severity of intraoperative pain. The magnitude of aesthetic discomfort and sleep disturbances did not differ between groups. An S-ICD was implanted in 7 additional patients after removal of a TV-ICD. All but one of these patients recommended the S-ICD system.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of ICD system and the surgical technique have negligible impact on patients' quality of life. These results suggest that conscious sedation, provided by an experienced electrophysiology team, could be considered as an alternative to general anesthesia to manage patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

Improving the care for female subcutaneous ICD patients: A qualitative study of gender-specific issues

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) consists of a large generator and is implanted near the left breast. This might lead to discomfort and problems with self-perception and sexuality, especially in the female population. We aimed to assess the issues that female S-ICD patients experience and to provide practical guidance for cardiologists and implanters on minimizing these issues.

METHODS

For this retrospective single-center study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with four female S-ICD patients and processed their experiences into a questionnaire. This consisted of three open questions and 17 statements that participants could answer through a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was subsequently sent to all female adult patients who received an S-ICD between February 2009 and November 2018 in our tertiary centre in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

RESULTS

The response rate of the questionnaire was 73%, with 52 female respondents (mean age 47.4 ± 12.5 years, mean time since implant 4.6 ± 3.1 years). Postoperative pain exceeded the expectation of 54% of the respondents. Furthermore, 14 out of 49 respondents (29%) expressed an unpleasant feeling during intimate contact with their sexual partner since the implant. Many women (44%) reported daily discomfort caused by their bra and preferred a more cranial and posterior position of the S-ICD generator. Finally, a smaller design of the generator is desired by a great majority (63%) of female S-ICD patients CONCLUSION: Female S-ICD patients experience a variety of issues with a substantial impact on their daily life. Most issues that we identified would benefit from adequate counseling and implanter awareness.

Quality of life, depression, and anxiety in patients with a subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator system

BACKGROUND

Use of the subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) has increased because the device received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2012, but we still know little about whether the quality of life (QoL) of patients with an S-ICD versus a transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) is comparable. We compared S-ICD patients with TV-ICD patients on QoL, depression, and anxiety up to 12 months' follow-up.

METHODS

A matched cohort of S-ICD (N = 167) and TV-ICD patients (N = 167) completed measures on QoL, depression, anxiety, and personality at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months post implant. Data were analyzed using multivariable modeling with repeated measures.

RESULTS

In adjusted analyses, we found no statistically significant differences between cohorts on physical and mental QoL and depression (all Ps > .05), while S-ICD patients reported lower anxiety than TV-ICD patients (P = 0.0007). Both cohorts experienced improvements in physical and mental QoL and symptoms of depression and anxiety over time (all Ps < .001), primarily between implant and 3 months. These improvements were similar for both cohorts with respect to physical and mental QoL and anxiety (Ps > .05), while S-ICD patients experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms (P = .0317).

CONCLUSION

The QoL and depression levels were similar in patients with an S-ICD and a TV-ICD up to 12 months' follow-up, while S-ICD patients reported lower anxiety levels and a greater reduction in depression over time as compared to TV-ICD patients. This knowledge may be important for patients and clinicians, if the indication for implantation allows both the S-ICD and the TV-ICD, making a choice possible.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is gaining in popularity for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. The objective was to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of the S-ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death compared to transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD).

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analyses was performed. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were consulted in March 2018 with no restrictions on publication date. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of studies and to assess their methodologic quality.

RESULTS

Ten longitudinal-observational studies with comparison group presenting moderate methodologic flaws were included (N = 7820). The combination of results indicates that health-related quality of life is not significantly different between S-ICD and TV-ICD groups (Physical health: MD = 2.90; 95% CI = -3.88, 9.68/Mental health: MD = 0.13; 95% CI = -2.11, 2.37). Mortality occurred in 4.4% of S-ICD patients and 5.9% of TV-ICD patients died (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.24). The incidence of infections (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 0.93, 3.43) and inappropriate shocks (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.91, 1.78) is not significantly different between both groups. The S-ICD reduces complications related to electrodes/leads (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.29) and has lower electrodes/leads movement compared with TV-ICD (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.10, 0.67). In contrast, pneumothorax is more likely in TV-ICD than S-ICD (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICD reduces electrodes/leads movement, electrodes/leads related complications, and pneumothorax. Our study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mortality, health-related quality of life, and infection rate between S-ICD and TV-ICD.

Comparative outcomes of subcutaneous and transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators

Background:

The comparative outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (T-ICD) have not been well studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of currently available S-ICD and T-ICD.

Methods:

The study included 86 patients who received an S-ICD and 1:1 matched to those who received single-chamber T-ICD by gender, age, diagnosis, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and implant year. The clinical outcomes and implant complications were compared between the two groups.

Results:

The mean age of the 172 patients was 45 years, and 129 (75%) were male. The most common cardiac condition was hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, 37.8%). The mean LVEF was 50%. At a mean follow-up of 23 months, the appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy rate were 1.2% vs. 4.7% (χ² = 1.854, P = 0.368) and 9.3% vs. 3.5% (χ² = 2.428, P = 0.211) in S-ICD and T-ICD groups respectively. There were no significant differences in device-related major and minor complications between the two groups (7.0% vs. 3.5%, χ² = 1.055, P = 0.496). The S-ICD group had higher T-wave oversensing than T-ICD group (9.3% vs. 0%, χ² = 8.390, P = 0.007). Sixty-five patients had HCM (32 in S-ICD and 33 in T-ICD). The incidence of major complications was not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions:

The efficacy of an S-ICD is comparable to that of T-ICD, especially in a dominantly HCM patient population. The S-ICD is associated with fewer major complications demanding reoperation.

Efficacy, safety, and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lead-related complication is an important drawback of trans-venous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed to overcome ICD lead associated complications; however, whether the S-ICD confers enhanced clinical benefits compared with TV-ICD remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess TV-ICD and S-ICD for safety, efficacy, and in-hospital outcomes in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients not requiring pacing.

METHODS

The Medline, PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing TV-ICD and S-ICD.

RESULTS

A total of 9 eligible studies, including 5 propensity-matched case-control, 3 retrospective, and 1 cross-sectional studies were identified, assessing 7361 patients in all. Pool analyses demonstrated that SICD were associated with lower lead-related complication rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.33; I = 0%], and S-ICD was more beneficial in terms of reducing ICD shocks [OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.72, I = 4%]. In addition, the patients administered S-ICD tend to have shorter length of hospital stay after implantation (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.00, I = 0%) and reduce total complication rates (OR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.03; I = 18%), non-decreased quality of life (QoL). Moreover, both devices appeared to perform equally well with respect to infection rate and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Available overall data suggested that S-ICD is associated with reducing lead-related complications, ICD shocks. In addition, S-ICD has tendency to shorten hospitalization and reduce total complications, although the difference is no significant. Equivalent death rate, infection, and QoL were found between 2 groups. Therefore, S-ICD could be considered an alternative approach to TV-ICD in appropriate patients for SCD prevention.

Transvenous Lead Extractions: Current Approaches and Future Trends

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has continued to rise along with indications for their removal. When confronted with challenging clinical scenarios such as device infection, malfunction or vessel occlusion, patients often require the prompt removal of CIED hardware, including associated leads. Recent advancements in percutaneous methods have enabled physicians to face a myriad of complex lead extractions with efficiency and safety. Looking ahead, emerging technologies hold great promise in making extractions safer and more accessible for patients worldwide. This review will provide the most up-to-date indications and procedural approaches for lead extractions and insight on the future trends in this novel field.

Exploring the patients’ experiences of living with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Background:

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator provides effective treatment for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest but significant risks associated with transvenous implantation persist. The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator has proven to be an alternative and innovative treatment option for select patients to mitigate these risks. Obtaining the patients’ perspectives can provide clinicians with essential information to guide implant selection, procedural decision-making, and support patient management. Conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients have reported shock-related anxiety, fear, insufficient education, and challenges adapting to physical and psychological changes. Little evidence exists to determine whether differences between the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator allow for the transferability of our current knowledge to the care and management of this population.

Aims:

The purpose of this study was to explore patients’ experiences of living with a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator including the decision-making process, implant, and follow-up care processes.

Methods:

Using an exploratory qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with 15 participants who underwent subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implant.

Results:

Analysis revealed five main themes: (a) influences on decision-making; (b) unmet education needs; (c) physical impact; (d) psychological impact; and (e) recommendations.

Conclusion:

As a new technology, little knowledge of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator exists outside of the tertiary implanting sites, therefore developing new strategies to increase learning and dissemination is essential. Although similarities exist in our findings to those of conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillators, there are significant differences in the decision-making process and physical impact which require individualized care planning and development of strategies to provide a patient-centered approach to care.

Analysis of Screening Electrocardiogram for the Subcutaneous Defibrillator in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

Candidates for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) are screened using an electrocardiogram (S-ECG) tool to measure appropriate detection. We sought to define the S-ICD candidacy of congenital heart disease patients using the S-ECG tool. We also analyzed the reliability of the (S-ECG) tool between measurers in this population. Patients above the age of 12 and with a diagnosis associated with either a higher incidence of cardiac arrest or vascular access challenges were asked to undergo screening. S-ECGs were then analyzed by a pediatric electrophysiologist, an S-ICD device engineer, and an S-ICD clinical representative for candidacy. Results were compared for interobserver variability and S-ECGs were analyzed by t test to determine variables that differ among passing and failing leads. Thirty-one patients underwent screening. Two of the 31 (6.5%) patients failed S-ICD screening. Analysis of the screening leads demonstrated the highest passing rates using lead III at a 5 mm/mV amplitude setting with 71 and 62% pass rate in the supine and standing positions, respectively. Interobserver analysis correlated well among the three measurers. There was a higher amplitude difference between QRS and T waves among passing versus failing S-ECG. Congenital heart disease patients have acceptable passage rates utilizing the S-ECG algorithm. Interobserver measurements were well correlated and these data suggest that the proximal coil to device (lead III) vector would be best utilized in this patient population. A larger difference between QRS and T wave amplitudes was associated with a higher S-ECG passing rate.

Inappropriate shock in a subcutaneous cardiac defibrillator due to residual air

Inappropriate shock due to residual air in subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators is not a well‐known complication. Obtaining overpenetrated X‐rays, recognizing electrocardiogram findings, limiting blunt finger dissection, and switching to sense at another vector are techniques which might lead to avoidance of unnecessary wound exploration or device removal.