Prospective blinded evaluation of a novel sensing methodology designed to reduce inappropriate shocks by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Fifteen years of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: Where do we stand, and what will the future hold?

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has emerged as a feasible alternative to the transvenous ICD in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients without indications for pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy. Since its introduction, numerous innovations have been made and clinical experience has been gained, leading to its adoption in current practice and preference in certain populations. Moreover, emerging technologies like the extravascular ICD and the combination of the S-ICD with the leadless pacemaker offer new possibilities for the future. These advancements underscore the evolving role of the S-ICD in management of ventricular tachyarrhythmia. This review outlines implantation considerations, patient selection, and troubleshooting advancements in the last 15 years and provides insights into future perspectives.

Incidence, implications, and management of sense-B-noise failure in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from a large multicentre registry

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) offer potentially distinct advantages over transvenous defibrillator systems. Recent randomized trials showed significantly lower lead failure rates than transvenous ICD. Still, S-ICDs remain associated with the risk of inappropriate shocks (IAS). While previous studies have reported varying causes of IAS, this study explores a rare cause of IAS, referred to as 'sense-B-noise.' It was recently described in case series, but its incidence has not been studied in a large cohort of S-ICD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients implanted with S-ICD models 1010, A209, and A219 between October 2009 and July 2023 across nine centres in Europe and the USA. The analysis concentrated on determining the incidence and understanding the implications of sense-B-noise events. Sense-B-noise represents a rare manifestation of distinct electrogram abnormalities within the primary and alternate sensing vectors. Data were collected from medical records, device telemetry, and manufacturer reports for investigation. This registry is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05713708). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices of the 1158 patients were analysed. The median follow-up time for all patients was 46 (IQR 23-64) months. In 107 patients (9.2%) ≥1 IAS was observed during follow-up. Sense-B-noise failure was diagnosed in six (0.5 and 5.6% of all IAS) patients, in all patients, the diagnosis was made after an IAS episode. Median lead dwell time in the affected patients was 23 (2-70) months. To resolve the sense-B-noise defect, in three patients reprogramming to the secondary vector was undertaken, and two patients underwent system removal with subsequent S-ICD reimplantation due to low amplitude in the secondary vector. In one patient, the secondary vector was initially programmed, and subsequently, an S-ICD system exchange was performed due to T-wave-oversensing IAS episodes.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre analysis' findings shed light on a rare but clinically highly significant adverse event in S-ICD therapy. To our knowledge, we provide the first systematic multicentre analysis investigating the incidence of sense-B-noise. Due to being difficult to diagnose and limited options for resolution, management of sense-B-noise is challenging. Complete system exchange may be the only option for some patients. Educating healthcare providers involved in S-ICD patient care is crucial for ensuring accurate diagnosis and effective management of sense-B-noise issues.

Unconventional diagnosis of bradyarrhythmic syncope in Brugada syndrome: a case report

Background

The Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an inherited disorder associated with the risk of ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac death (SCD). The current main therapy is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). However, the risk stratification and management of patients remain challenging. Here, we present a case of BrS representative of the pitfalls that clinicians may encounter in the management of Brugada patients in routine clinical practice.

Case summary

A 39-year-old man with BrS and recurring syncope was implanted with a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) (EMBLEM MRI S-ICD, Boston Scientific). Syncope recurred some months later. Subcutaneous ICD interrogation showed no arrhythmic events, but SMART Pass (high-pass filter) deactivation was noted. A query was sent to Boston Scientific clinical service, unveiling an extremely long asystolic pause as syncope determinant. Subcutaneous ICD was explanted and replaced by conventional single chamber ICD in the pre-pectoral region.

Discussion

Brugada syndrome patients with high-risk features are candidates for ICD implantation to prevent SCD. Recent evidence highlighted that symptomatic patients carry a substantially higher risk compared with asymptomatic ones. Syncope may represent a pivotal symptom in BrS patients, but young patients with Type 1 Brugada pattern may experience syncope other than from tachyarrhythmias. Subcutaneous ICD is an advisable option in young ICD recipients to avoid lifetime complication related to standard transvenous systems. However, S-ICD lacks pacing capabilities and, therefore, is not indicated when an anti-bradycardia system is needed. The diagnostic workup of syncope in Brugada patients may be ineffective in elucidating the underlying aetiology whose understanding is essential to offer a personalized therapeutic approach.

Ten years of subcutaneous defibrillator therapy: Consolidated clinical evidence and future perspectives

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed as an alternative to the traditional transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD), aiming to provide easier implantation, simplified detection algorithm of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and prevention from placing components in the cardiovascular system. The S-ICD is implanted subcutaneously or intramuscularly with the generator placed in the left midaxillary line and the lead tunneled subcutaneously in the left para-sternal region. Preimplant electrocardiogram screening is recommended to prevent implantation in patients at high risk of T wave over-sensing. Currently, the S-ICD is unsuitable for patients requiring pacing or cardiac resynchronization. Since the beginning, the S-ICD underwent extensive preclinical investigation until the first prospective multicentre trial demonstrating high efficacy and safety led to market release. While earlier studies focused on younger patients with higher ejection fraction, more recent studies showed favorable outcomes even in patients with comorbidities similar to those typically observed in patients receiving TV-ICD. The development of second and third generation devices has contributed to reduce inappropriate shocks and overcome previous limitations. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence in the literature over the past decade supporting S-ICD as a valid alternative to TV-ICD in terms of safety and efficacy, highlighting the improvements in technology, as well as outcomes.

Intra-Abdominal Hemorrhage Triggering Inappropriate Therapy From a Subcutaneous Defibrillator

The SMART Pass filter (Boston Scientific) aims to reduce inappropriate shocks (IASs) from subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators by filtering out low-frequency signals such as T waves. However, this filter is deactivated in the presence of diminished R-wave sensing. We describe a case of IAS in the setting of extensive intra-abdominal hemorrhage.

ICD outcome in pediatric arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a very rare condition among pediatric patients. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the main complication and often requires ICD implantation. Aim of the study is the evaluation of the outcomes of ICD implanted ACM pediatric patients in terms of safety, efficacy and complications.

METHODS

All pediatric patients (<18 y.o.) diagnosed with ACM and who were implanted with ICD since 2009 in Our Institution were collected. Implantation was decided according to current recommendations/ guidelines, and outcome was recorded during follow-up.

RESULTS

Nineteen consecutive ACM patients were implanted with ICD. Subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) were implanted in 15 patients (79%) while transvenous ICDs (TV-ICD) in 4 patients (21%). Mean age at implantation was 14.3 ± 2.1 y.o. ICDs were implanted for secondary prevention in 4 (21%) patients, and for primary prevention in 15 (79%). During the follow-up (5.59 ± 3.4 years), appropriate ICD interventions were delivered in 4 (21%) patients for sustained VTs, [2 implanted in primary prevention (13%) and 2 in secondary prevention (50%)]. No defibrillation failures occurred. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 2 cases (10.5%). Device-related complications requiring device revision occurred in 3 (16%): lead dislodgement, surgical skin erosion and sensing defect.

CONCLUSIONS

In a pediatric ACM cohort, appropriate ICD therapies occurred in a minority of primary prevention patients and frequently in secondary prevention patients. The rate of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications were even more rare and mostly wound related. Therefore, ICD therapy in pediatric ACM is effective and safe.

Inappropriate shock incidence in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with concomitant cardiac implantable electronic devices: A single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are occasionally used in combination with other cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, whether the incidence of inappropriate shock increases in patients with S-ICDs and concomitant CIEDs remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between the concomitant use of CIEDs and the incidence of inappropriate shock in patients with current-generation S-ICDs.

METHODS

A total of 127 consecutive patients received an S-ICD. Patients were assigned to two groups depending on concomitant use of CIEDs at the time of S-ICD implantation: patients without other CIEDs (non-combined group, 106 patients) and patients with other CIEDs (combined group, 21 patients). CIEDs included pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers, and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. The primary outcome was inappropriate shock, defined as a shock other than ventricular arrhythmia. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model which was adjusted for age because age differed between the groups and could be a confounder.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.4 years), inappropriate shock events occurred in 17 (16%) and five (19%) patients of the non-combined and combined groups, respectively. While the age-adjusted hazard ratio for inappropriate shock was 24% higher in the combined than in the non-combined group (hazard ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval, 0.39-3.97), this difference was insignificant (p = .71).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of inappropriate shock did not differ between patients with and without concomitant use of CIEDs, suggesting that S-ICDs could potentially be combined with other CIEDs without increasing the number of inappropriate shocks. Further studies are warranted to confirm the safety and feasibility of concomitant use of S-ICDs and CIEDs.

Comparison of Preoperative ECG Screening and Device-Based Vector Analysis in Patients Receiving a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Background and Objectives: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) provide protection against sudden cardiac death from outside the cardiovascular system. ECG screening is a prerequisite for implantation, but the reproducibility of its results post-operatively in the device is only partial. We aimed to compare the results of ECG screening with device-based sensing vector analysis. Materials and Methods: We screened the hospital records of all S-ICD recipients in our clinic. All of them had pre-operative ECG screening performed (primary, secondary, and alternate vectors). The results were compared with device-based vector analysis to determine the relation of the pre- and post-operative vector availability. Results: Complete ECG screening and device-based vector analysis were obtained for 103 patients. At least two acceptable vectors were found in 97.1% of the patients pre-operatively and in 96.1% post-operatively. When comparing vectors in terms of agreement (OK or FAIL) pre- and post-operatively, in 89.3% of the patients, the result for the primary vector was the same in both situations; for the secondary, it was in 84.5%, and for the alternate, it was in 74.8% of patients, respectively. In 55.3% of patients, all three vectors were labeled the same (OK or FAIL); in 37.9%, two vectors had the same result, and in 6.8%, only one vector had the same result pre- and post-operatively. The number of available vectors was the same pre- and post-operatively in 62.1% of patients, while in 15.5%, it was lower, and in 22.3% of patients, it was higher than observed during screening. Conclusions: Routine clinical pre-operative screening allowed for a good selection of candidates for S-ICD implantation. All patients had at least one vector available post-operatively. The final number of vectors available in the device-based analysis in most patients was at least the same (or higher) than during screening. The repeatability of the positive result for a single vector was high.

Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shocks-A Rare Case of Triple Counting

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a significant contributor to cardiovascular deaths worldwide. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have shown efficacy in preventing and reducing mortality from SCD, but traditional transvenous ICDs have inherent challenges and drawbacks, such as lead fractures, lead-associated endocarditis, and lead failure. To address these issues, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) have been developed. S-ICDs lack pacing capacity but are a valid alternative for patients at high risk for infection or with difficult venous access. Pre-implantation screening can help prevent inappropriate device shocks. We present a case in which a patient received inappropriate S-ICD therapy, which was attributed to the triple counting of P-, R-, and T-waves in a patient with sinus rhythm. This is an unusual occurrence, and, to the best of our knowledge, there are only a limited number of case reports documenting inappropriate shocks due to the oversensing of P-waves and T-waves.

How likely is the sense-B-noise to affect patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and can we solve that problem in every case?

BACKGROUND

Sense-B-noise is a newly reported possible cause of inappropriate shocks in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs). The nature of that noise is unknown, it is not related to mechanical failure of the S-ICD system. Reprogramming to the secondary sensing vector is suggested by the producer as a possible solution.

METHODS

We analyzed the medical records of S-ICD recipients from two university clinical centers (Gdansk and Szczecin, Poland). Our aim was to determine the rate of sense-B-noise, and whether the secondary sensing vector would be available for reprogramming if such a problem occurred in our patients.

RESULTS

The sense-B-noise issue affected three patients in our cohort (3%), which corresponds to the incidence of 0.012 events per patient-year of follow-up. The primary vector was permanently used in 47 patients (52%), secondary in 28 (31%), and alternate in 16 (17%), respectively. Therefore, the total number of patients potentially vulnerable to sense-B noise (with the primary or alternate vector programmed permanently) was 63 (69%). Among those 63 patients, 51 individuals (81%) had also the secondary vector available for permanent use.

CONCLUSION

The sense-B-noise affected 3% of patients in our cohort, with an incidence of 0.012 per patient-year of follow-up. Most patients potentially vulnerable to sense-B noise could be reprogrammed to the secondary sensing vector, if necessary. Further investigation of the sense-B-noise issue is needed.

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.

Beyond Tissue replacement: The Emerging role of smart implants in healthcare

Smart implants are increasingly used to treat various diseases, track patient status, and restore tissue and organ function. These devices support internal organs, actively stimulate nerves, and monitor essential functions. With continuous monitoring or stimulation, patient observation quality and subsequent treatment can be improved. Additionally, using biodegradable and entirely excreted implant materials eliminates the need for surgical removal, providing a patient-friendly solution. In this review, we classify smart implants and discuss the latest prototypes, materials, and technologies employed in their creation. Our focus lies in exploring medical devices beyond replacing an organ or tissue and incorporating new functionality through sensors and electronic circuits. We also examine the advantages, opportunities, and challenges of creating implantable devices that preserve all critical functions. By presenting an in-depth overview of the current state-of-the-art smart implants, we shed light on persistent issues and limitations while discussing potential avenues for future advancements in materials used for these devices.

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.

Design and rationale of the MODULAR ATP global clinical trial: A novel intercommunicative leadless pacing system and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has demonstrated safety and efficacy for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. However, a limitation of the S-ICD lies in the inability to either pace-terminate ventricular tachycardia or provide prolonged bradycardia pacing support.

Objective

The rationale and design of a prospective, single-arm, multinational trial of an intercommunicative leadless pacing system integrated with the S-ICD will be presented.

Methods

A technical description of the modular cardiac rhythm management (mCRM) system (EMPOWER leadless pacemaker and EMBLEM S-ICD) and the implantation procedure is provided. MODULAR ATP (Effectiveness of the EMPOWER™ Modular Pacing System and EMBLEM™ Subcutaneous ICD to Communicate Antitachycardia Pacing) is a multicenter, international trial enrolling up to 300 patients at risk of sudden cardiac death at up to 60 centers trial design. The safety endpoint of freedom from major complications related to the mCRM system or implantation procedure at 6 months and 2 years are significantly higher than 86% and 81%, respectively, and all-cause survival is significantly >85% at 2 years.

Results

Efficacy endpoints are that at 6 months mCRM communication success is significantly higher than 88% and the percentage of subjects with low and stable thresholds is significantly higher than 80%. Substudies to evaluate rate-responsive features and performance of the pacing module are also described.

Conclusion

The MODULAR ATP global clinical trial will prospectively test the safety and efficacy of the first intercommunicating leadless pacing system with the S-ICD. This trial will allow for robust validation of device-device communication, pacing performance, rate responsiveness, and system safety.

Exploiting SMART pass filter deactivation detection to minimize inappropriate subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies: a real-world single-centre experience and management guide

AIMS

The SMART Pass™ (SP) algorithm is a high-pass filter that aims to reduce inappropriate therapy (IT) in subcutaneous internal cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD), but SP can deactivate due to low amplitude sensed R waves or asystole. The association between IT and SP deactivation and management strategies were evaluated, hypothesizing SP deactivation increases the risk of IT and device re-programming, or lead/generator re-positioning could reduce this risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective single-centre audit of Emblem™ S-ICD devices implanted 2016 to 2020 utilizing health records and remote monitoring data. Cox regression models evaluated associations between SP deactivation and IT. A total of 348 patients (27 ± 16.6 months follow-up) were studied: 73% primary prevention. Thirty-eight patients (11.8%) received 83 shocks with 27 patients (7.8%) receiving a total of 44 IT. Causes of IT were oversensing (98%) and aberrantly conducted atrial fibrillation (2%). SP deactivation occurred in 32 of 348 patients (9%) and was significantly associated with increased risk of IT (hazard ratio 5.36, 95% CI 2.37-12.13). SP deactivation was due to low amplitude R waves (94%), associated with a higher defibrillation threshold at implant and presence of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. No further IT occurred 16 ± 15.5 months after corrective interventions, with changing the sensing vector being successful in 59% of cases.

CONCLUSION

To reduce the risk of IT, the cause of the SP deactivation should be investigated, and appropriate reprogramming, device, or lead modifications made. Utilizing the alert for SP deactivation and electrograms could pro-actively prevent IT.

Reduction in inappropriate therapies through device programming in subcutaneous implantable defibrillator patients: data from clinical practice

AIMS

In subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients, the UNTOUCHED study demonstrated a very low inappropriate shock rate on programming a conditional zone between 200 and 250 bpm and a shock zone for arrhythmias >250 bpm. The extent to which this programming approach is adopted in clinical practice is still unknown, as is its impact on the rates of inappropriate and appropriate therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed ICD programming on implantation and during follow-up in a cohort of 1468 consecutive S-ICD recipients in 56 Italian centres. We also measured the occurrence of inappropriate and appropriate shocks during follow-up. On implantation, the median programmed conditional zone cut-off was set to 200 bpm (IQR: 200-220) and the shock zone cut-off was 230 bpm (IQR: 210-250). During follow-up, the conditional zone cut-off rate was not significantly changed, while the shock zone cut-off was changed in 622 (42%) patients and the median value increased to 250 bpm (IQR: 230-250) (P < 0.001). UNTOUCHED-like programming of detection cut-offs was adopted in 426 (29%) patients immediately after device implantation, and in 714 (49%, P < 0.001) at the last follow-up. UNTOUCHED-like programming was independently associated with fewer inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio 0.50, 95%CI 0.25-0.98, P = 0.044), and had no impact on appropriate and ineffective shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, S-ICD implanting centres have increasingly programmed high arrhythmia detection cut-off rates, at the time of implantation in the case of new S-ICD recipients, and during follow-up in the case of pre-existing implants. This has contributed significantly to reducing the incidence of inappropriate shocks in clinical practice. Rordorf: Programming of the S-ICD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and intermuscular two-incision implantation technique in patients with Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on the potential advantages of combining the third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) with modern software upgrade including the "SMART Pass", modern programming strategies and the intermuscular (IM) two-incision implantation technique in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) with different phenotypic variants are lacking. In this study we evaluated the long-term outcome of patients with ACM who underwent third-generation S-ICD (Emblem, Boston Scientific) and IM two-incision technique.

METHODS

The study population included 23 consecutive patients [70% male, median age 31 (24-46) years] diagnosed with ACM with different phenotypic variants who received third-generation S-ICD implantation with the IM two-incision technique.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 45.5 months [16-65], 4 patients (17.4%) received a at least one inappropriate shock (IS), with median annual event rate of 4.5%. Extra-cardiac oversensing (myopotential) during effort represented the only cause of IS. No IS due to T-wave oversensing (TWOS) were recorded. Only one patient (4.3%) experienced device-related complication consisting of premature cell battery depletion requiring device replacement. No device explantation because of need for anti-tachycardia pacing or ineffective therapy occurred. There was no significant difference between patients who did and did not experienced IS with regard to baseline clinical, ECG and technical characteristics. Five patients (21.7%) received appropriate shock on ventricular arrythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our finding, although the third-generation S-ICD implanted with the IM two-incision technique appears to be associated with a low risk of complications and IS due to cardiac oversensing, the risk of IS due to myopotential mainly during effort should be considered.

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.

Subcutaneous and Transvenous Defibrillators in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Comparison of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence guiding the selection between subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) at risk for sudden death.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare clinical and quality-of-life outcomes between transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs among patients with ARVC.

METHODS

Patients with a subcutaneous ICD (n = 57) were matched to patients with a transvenous ICD (n = 88) based on sex, proband status, primary prevention or secondary prevention, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia before implantation, and year of implantation. Appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia, inappropriate shocks, and complications were compared. Quality-of-life surveys were conducted annually.

RESULTS

The matched cohort (median age of 35 years, 43% men, 78% proband, and 37% secondary prevention device) were prospectively followed for 5.1 ± 2.5 years. No significant difference was observed in the rate of appropriate ICD shocks. The subcutaneous group had more inappropriate shocks (23% vs 10%) and fewer procedure-related complications (4% vs 14%) than the transvenous group (P < 0.05). The association between ICD type and the composite of inappropriate shock and complication was not statistically significant (subcutaneous vs transvenous adjusted HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.72-2.84). A subcutaneous ICD was associated with more body image concerns and range of motion than a transvenous ICD (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ARVC receiving an ICD, the risk of inappropriate shocks from a subcutaneous ICD should be balanced against the significant vascular complication risk from a transvenous ICD. Patients with a subcutaneous ICD had more concerns for body image and range of motion.

Multicenter assessment of the outcomes of subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with prior or future sternotomy

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is a viable alternative to transvenous ICD and avoids intravascular complications in patients without a pacing indication. The outcomes of S-ICD implantation are uncertain in patients with prior sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the implant techniques and outcomes with S-ICD implantation in patients with and without prior sternotomy.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study including adult patients with an S-ICD implanted between January 2014 and June 2020. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without prior sternotomy.

RESULTS

Among the 212 patients (49 ± 15 years old, 43% women, BMI 30 ± 8 kg/m² , 68% primary prevention, 30% ischemic cardiomyopathy, LVEF median 30% IQR 25%-45%) who underwent S-ICD implantation, 47 (22%) had a prior sternotomy. There was no difference in the sensing vector (57% vs. 53% primary, p = 0.55), laterality of the S-ICD lead to the sternum (94% vs. 96% leftward, p = 0.54), or the defibrillation threshold (65 ± 1.4 J vs. 65 ± 0.8 J, p = 0.76) with versus without prior sternotomy. The frequency of 30-day complications was similar with and without prior sternotomy (n = 3/47 vs. n = 15/165, 6% vs. 9%, p = 0.56). Over a median follow-up of 28 months (IQR 10-49 months), the frequency of inappropriate shocks was similar between those with and without prior sternotomy (n = 3/47 and n = 16/165, 6% vs. 10%, p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of an S-ICD in patients with prior sternotomy is safe with a similar risk of 30-day complications and inappropriate ICD shocks as patients without prior sternotomy.

Lights and shadows of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Brugada syndrome

Currently the cornerstone of therapy for ventricular arrhythmic complications and sudden cardiac death prevention in Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). BrS patient population differs from the majority of patients with an ICD implanted for structural heart disease, and as widely known, transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) systems have been associated with high complication rates in patients with BrS. Technological evolution of these devices has certainly reduced complications due to the device itself, but a careful preimplant screening of these patients is still essential. To date, criteria for an adequate screening process to select suitable candidates for a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) from patients with BrS are sometimes nonstandardized and often lack important precautions that are instead fundamental to select the most suitable type of ICD for these patients. To better select suitable candidates for an S-ICD from patients with BrS, a full screening process should include screening during or immediately after an exercise test and after a drug provocation challenge test. We report an analysis of the "lights and shadows" of S-ICD for a correct use of this device in patients with BrS.

Pre-implant predictors of inappropriate shocks with the third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

AIMS

Despite recent improvements, inappropriate shocks emitted by implanted subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) remain a challenge in 'real-life' practice. We aimed to study the pre-implant factors associated with inappropriate shocks for the latest generation of S-ICDs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three-hundred patients implanted with the third-generation S-ICD system for primary or secondary prevention between January 2017 and March 2020 were included in this multicentre retrospective observational study. A follow-up of at least 6 months and pre-implant screening procedure data were mandatory for inclusion. During a mean follow-up of 22.8 (±11.4) months, 37 patients (12.3%) received appropriate S-ICD shock therapy, whereas 26 patients (8.7%) experienced inappropriate shocks (incidence 4.9 per 100 patient years). The total number of inappropriate shock episodes was 48, with nine patients experiencing multiple episodes. The causes of inappropriate shocks included supraventricular arrhythmias (34.6%) and cardiac (30.7%) or extra-cardiac noise (38.4%) oversensing. Using multivariate analysis, we explored the independent factors associated with inappropriate shocks. These were the availability of less than three sensing vectors during pre-implant screening [hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.93; P = 0.035], low QRS/T wave ratio in Lead I (for a threshold <3; HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.00-11.49; P < 0.001), history of supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 8.67; 95% CI, 2.80-26.7; P < 0.001), and being overweight (body mass index > 25; HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.10-6.45; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Automatic pre-implant screening data are a useful quantitative predictor of inappropriate shocks. Electrocardiogram features should be taken into consideration along with other clinical factors to identify patients at high risk of inappropriate shocks.

Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator among drug-induced type-1 ECG pattern Brugada syndrome: a propensity score matching analysis from IBRYD study

No real-world data are available about the complications rate in drug-induced type 1 Brugada Syndrome (BrS) patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Aim of our study is to compare the device-related complications, infections, and inappropriate therapies among drug-induced type 1 BrS patients with transvenous- ICD (TV-ICD) versus subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). Data for this study were sourced from the IBRYD (Italian BRugada sYnDrome) registry which includes 619 drug-induced type-1 BrS patients followed at 20 Italian tertiary referral hospitals. For the present analysis, we selected 258 consecutive BrS patients implanted with ICD. 198 patients (76.7%) received a TV-ICD, while 60 a S-ICD (23.4%). And were followed-up for a median time of 84.3 [46.5-147] months. ICD inappropriate therapies were experienced by 16 patients (6.2%). 14 patients (7.1%) in the TVICD group and 2 patients (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.64). ICD-related complications occurred in 31 patients (12%); 29 (14.6%) in TV-ICD group and 2 (3.3%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.41). ICD-related infections occurred in 10 patients (3.88%); 9 (4.5%) in TV-ICD group and 1 (1.8%) in S-ICD group (log-rank P = 0.80). After balancing for potential confounders using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in terms of clinical outcomes between the two groups. In a real-world setting of drug-induced type-1 BrS patients with ICD, no significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies, device-related complications, and infections were shown among S-ICD vs TV-ICD. However, a reduction in lead-related complications was observed in the S-ICD group. In conclusion, our evidence suggests that S-ICD is at least non-inferior to TV-ICD in this population and may also reduce the risk of lead-related complications which can expose the patients to the necessity of lead extractions.

Evolution of extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for ventricular arrhythmias

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have become an established therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death due to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in the last decades. In all those years, the use of transvenous leads has proven to be the most vulnerable part of the system. The development of the completely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator opened a new era of device therapy outside of the vascular system. The next step, enabling extravascular devices with the option of antitachycardia pacing, is just around the corner. This may become an important option for all patients without a bradycardia pacing indication that are in need for antitachycardia pacing because of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia.

Hyperkalemia Causing Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Shocks in a Patient with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Case Report and Literature Review

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) provide an effective treatment option for ventricular arrhythmias. When compared to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICDs), S-ICDs have a lower infection rate but a higher rate of inappropriate shocks. In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), significant electrolyte disturbances are commonly seen, such as hyperkalemia, which can cause an increase in T wave amplitude. We present a patient with ESRD on hemodialysis who experienced inappropriate shocks from an S-ICD during sinus rhythm due to hyperkalemia-induced T wave oversensing and highlight related cases in the current literature.

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.

Clinical impact of ECG change on oversensing of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate shocks delivered from subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) are most frequently caused by cardiac oversensing. However, the predictors for oversensing of S-ICD remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the predictors for oversensing of S-ICD, especially clinical impact of ECG change.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 99 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2013 and 2021. Oversensing events were defined as inappropriate charge of the capacitors induced by cardiac or noncardiac signals other than tachycardia.

RESULTS

During a median 34 month (IQR 20-50 months) of the follow-up period, 11 of the 99 patients experienced 34 oversensing events and 4 patients received inappropriate shocks during their events. Six patients exhibited ECG changes (bundle branch block, 3; ventricular pacing, 1; inverted T wave, 1; poor R progression, 1) during follow-up period. Oversensing events were observed in four of the six patients with ECG changes (67%), and three patients underwent S-ICD removal because of inevitable shock. Contrastingly, among the remaining patients without ECG change, all 7 patients who experienced oversensing events could continue using S-ICD with reprogramming sensing vector and/or restriction of excessive exercise. Logistic regression analysis showed lower voltage of Sokolow-Lyon ECG (V₁S+V₅R) was the predictor of oversensing event among the patients without ECG change. When the cut off value was 2.1mV, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 85.7%, 62.7%, 15.7%, and 98.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Unavoidable oversensing resulting in S-ICD removal is caused by ECG changes. Oversensing in patients without ECG change can be managed.

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.

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.

Device-Related Complications and Inappropriate Therapies Among Subcutaneous vs. Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Recipients: Insight Monaldi Rhythm Registry

Introduction

In the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods

All patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results.

Results

Total 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26–15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12–0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009–0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12–0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD.

Conclusions

The choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.

Impact of SMART Pass filter in patients with ajmaline-induced Brugada syndrome and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator eligibility failure: results from a prospective multicentre study

AIMS

Ajmaline challenge can unmask subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) screening failure in patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) and non-diagnostic baseline electrocardiogram (ECG). The efficacy of the SMART Pass (SP) filter, a high-pass filter designed to reduce cardiac oversensing (while maintaining an appropriate sensing margin), has not yet been assessed in patients with BrS. The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to investigate the effect of the SP filter on dynamic Brugada ECG changes evoked by ajmaline and to assess its value in reducing S-ICD screening failure in patients with drug-induced Brugada ECGs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The S-ICD screening with conventional automated screening tool (AST) was performed during ajmaline challenge in subjects with suspected BrS. The S-ICD recordings were obtained before, during and after ajmaline administration and evaluated by the means of a simulation model that emulates the AST behaviour with and without SP filter. A patient was considered suitable for S-ICD if at least one sensing vector was acceptable in all tested postures. A sensing vector was considered acceptable in the presence of QRS amplitude >0.5 mV, QRS/T-wave ratio >3.5, and sense vector score >100. Of the 126 subjects (mean age: 42 ± 14 years, males: 61%, sensing vectors: 6786), 46 (36%) presented with an ajmaline-induced Brugada type 1 ECG. Up to 30% of subjects and 40% of vectors failed the screening during the appearance of Brugada type 1 ECG evoked by ajmaline. The S-ICD screening failure rate was not significantly reduced in patients with Brugada ECGs when SP filter was enabled (30% vs. 24%). Similarly, there was only a trend in reduction of vector-failure rate attributable to the SP filter (from 40% to 36%). The most frequent reason for screening failure was low QRS amplitude or low QRS/T-wave ratio. None of these patients was implanted with an S-ICD.

CONCLUSION

Patients who pass the sensing screening during ajmaline can be considered good candidates for S-ICD implantation, while those who fail might be susceptible to sensing issues. Although there was a trend towards reduction of vector sensing failure rate when SP filter was enabled, the reduction in S-ICD screening failure in patients with Brugada ECGs did not reach statistical significance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier NCT04504591.

Safety and Efficacy of Magnet Use to Temporarily Inhibit Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Emergency Situations: A Case Report

Introduction: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advancement in ICD technology. Inappropriate shocks (IAS) occur in more than 3.1% of the population with S-ICD each year and are usually followed by admission to the emergency department (ED). In this setting, the disabling of IAS is mandatory during a pseudo-electrical storm (ES). This report describes the strategies that can be followed in order to temporarily inhibit IAS in critical care settings with the use of magnets.

Case presentation: An S-ICD was implanted more than 6 weeks prior to presentation in a 68-year-old man with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In the ED, the patient experienced 3 IAS in the last hour. A Medtronic magnet was applied to stop IAS, as the specific programmer was not available. The maneuver interrupted the IAS. In order to verify the universal magnetic response of the S-ICD, six different magnets and one smartphone with MagSafe technology were tested. All magnet models suspended arrhythmia detection and IAS, while the smartphone did not cause magnet interferences.

Conclusions: This report demonstrates the safety and efficacy of all clinical magnet models in inhibiting IAS. In case of pseudo-ES, any type of magnet allows ED providers to easily and rapidly disable the functionality of the devices when appropriate.

Personalized subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensing vectors generated by mathematical rotation increase device eligibility whilst preserving device performance

AIMS

Approximately 5.7% of potential subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients are ineligible by virtue of their vector morphology, with higher rates of ineligibility observed in some at-risk groups. Mathematical vector rotation is a novel technique that can generate a personalized sensing vector, one with maximal R:T ratio, using electrocardiogram (ECG) signal recorded from the present S-ICD location.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of S-ICD ineligible patients were identified through ECG screening of ICD patients with no ventricular pacing requirement and their personalized vectors were generated using ECG signal from a Holter monitor. Subcutaneous ICD eligibility in this cohort was then recalculated. In a separate cohort, episodes of arrhythmia were recorded in patients undergoing arrhythmia induction, and arrhythmia detection in standard S-ICD vectors was compared to rotated vectors using an S-ICD simulator. Ninety-two participants (mean age 64.9 ± 2.7 years) underwent screening and 5.4% were found to be S-ICD ineligible. Personalized vector generation increased the R:T ratio in these vectors from 2.21 to 7.21 (4.54-9.88, P < 0.001) increasing the cohort eligibility from 94.6% to 100%. Rotated S-ICD vectors also showed high ventricular fibrillation (VF) detection sensitivity (97.8%), low time to VF detection (6.1 s), and excellent tachycardia discrimination (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%), with no significant differences between rotated and standard vectors.

CONCLUSION

In S-ICD ineligible patients, mathematical vector rotation can generate a personalized vector that is associated with a significant increase in R:T ratio, resulting in universal device eligibility in our cohort. Ventricular fibrillation detection efficacy, time to VF detection, and tachycardia discrimination were not affected by vector rotation.

Performance evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with SmartShock technology in patients with inherited arrhythmogenic diseases

BACKGROUND

Patients with inherited arrhythmogenic diseases (IADs) are often prescribed preventative implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to manage their increased sudden cardiac arrest risk. However, it has been suggested that ICDs in IAD patients may come with additional risk. We aimed to leverage the PainFree SmartShock Technology dataset to compare inappropriate therapies, appropriate therapies, mortality, and complications in patients with and without IAD.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included extracted, physician-adjudicated, arrhythmic episodes from ICD devices. The incidence of arrhythmic events was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Of the 1699 ICD patients, 77 patients (4.5%) had IAD. Incidence of inappropriate shock was similar in both patients with (3.2% at 24 months) and without (3.8% at 24 months) IAD (HR: 0.80, CI: 0.19-3.30, p = 0.76). In a multivariable analysis IAD was not significantly associated with reduced mortality (HR: 0.64, CI: 0.08-4.80, p = 0.66). The rates of complications were numerically lower in patients with IAD vs without (8.8% vs 9.6% at 24 months respectively), but not statistically significant (HR: 0.83, CI: 0.20-3.38, p = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

IAD patients showed a very low annual rate of inappropriate therapy. This suggests that newer algorithms, such as the SST algorithm, are equally good at identifying and treating life-threatening arrhythmias in patients regardless of whether they have IAD.

OUP accepted manuscript

Aims

To report 5-year outcomes of EFFORTLESS registry patients with early generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices.

Methods and results

Kaplan–Meier, trend and multivariable analyses were performed for mortality and late (years 2–5) complications, appropriate shock (AS) and inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. Nine hundred and eighty-four of 994 enrolled patients with diverse diagnoses (28% female, 48 ± 17 years, body mass index 27 ± 6 kg/m², ejection fraction 43 ± 18%) underwent S-ICD implantation. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range 4.7–5.5 years). All-cause mortality was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 7.2–11.3%) at 5 years; 703 patients remained in follow-up on study completion, 171 withdrew including 87 (8.8%) with device explanted, and 65 (6.6%) lost to follow-up. Of the explants, only 20 (2.0%) patients needed a transvenous device for pacing indications. First and final shock efficacy for discrete ventricular arrhythmias was consistent at 90% and 98%, respectively, with storm episode final shock efficacy at 95.2%. Time to therapy remained unaltered. Overall 1- and 5-year complication rates were 8.9% and 15.2%, respectively. Early complications did not predict later complications. There were no structural lead failures. Inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 5 years were 8.7% and 16.9%, respectively. Self-terminating inappropriately sensed episodes predicted late IAS. Predictors of late AS included self-terminating appropriately sensed episodes and earlier AS.

Conclusion

In this diverse S-ICD registry population, spontaneous shock efficacy was consistently high over 5 years. Very few patients underwent S-ICD replacement with a transvenous device for pacing indications. Treated and self-terminating arrhythmic episodes predict future shock events, which should encourage more personalized device optimization.

S-ICD screening revisited: do passing vectors sometimes fail?

INTRODUCTION

Pre-implant ECG screening is performed to ensure that S-ICD recipients have at least one suitable sensing vector, yet cardiac over-sensing remains the commonest cause of inappropriate shock therapy in the S-ICD population. One explanation would be the presence of dynamic variations in ECG morphology that result in variations in vector eligibility.

METHODS

Adult ICD patients had a 24-h ambulatory ECG performed using a digital Holter positioned to record all three S-ICD vectors. Using an S-ICD simulator, automated screening was then performed at one-minute intervals. In vectors with a mean vector score > 100 (the accepted value for a passing vector when screened on a single occasion), the percentage of all screening assessments that passed, eligible vector time (EVT), was calculated. EVT was compared statistically to QRS duration, corrected time to peak T (pTc) and mean vector score.

RESULTS

Ambulatory monitoring was performed in 14 patients (mean age 63.7 ± 5.2 years, 71.4% male) with 42 vectors analysed. In 19 vectors the mean vector score was > 100. Within this "passing" cohort EVT varied between 42.7% and 100%. In 7/19 (37%) the EVT was <75%. A negative correlation was found between QRS duration and EVT (Pearson correlation -.60, p = .007). No correlation was found between EVT and mean vector score or pTc.

CONCLUSION

Vector eligibility is dynamic. When "passing" vectors are subjected to repeated screening, 37% are found to be ineligible, more than a quarter of the time. Further investigation is required to determine the clinical significance of these findings.

Non-transvenous ICD therapy: current status and beyond

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been developed to offer ICD treatment to patients without venous access to the heart and to overcome complications associated with transvenous leads, particularly lead fracture/insulation defects and endocarditis. Several studies and registries have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of S‑ICD in different groups of patients. Further developments in S‑ICD technology involve the combination with devices that can provide anti-bradycardia and anti-tachycardia pacing if needed. The extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) is a new system that similarly offers ICD therapy without a transvenous lead but uses a substernal instead of a subcutaneous lead to facilitate detection of ventricular fibrillation and to provide anti-tachycardia and also temporary anti-bradycardia pacing. The first animal but also clinical data on EV-ICDs have been published. This review discusses the current state, potential advantages and limitations, and future research of both S‑ICD and EV-ICD.