Programming implantable cardioverter–defibrillator in primary prevention: Guideline concordance and outcomes

The impact of supraventricular arrhythmias on the outcomes of guideline-compliant implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming

INTRODUCTION

Several implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) programming strategies are applied to minimize ICD therapy, especially unnecessary therapies from supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). However, it remains unknown whether these optimal programming recommendations only benefit those with SVAs or have any detrimental effects from delayed therapy on those without SVAs. This study aims to assess the impact of SVA on the outcomes of ICD programming based on 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention were classified into four groups based on SVA status and ICD programming: (1) guideline-concordant group (GC) with SVA, (2) GC without SVA, (3) nonguideline concordant group (NGC) with SVA, and (4) NGC without SVA. Cox proportional hazard models were analyzed for freedom from ICD therapies, shock, and mortality.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and seventy-two patients (median age, 64 years) were enrolled. ICD therapies were the most frequent in NGC with SVA (24.0%), followed by NGC without SVA (19.9%), GC without SVA (11.6%), and GC with SVA (8.1%). Guideline concordant programming was associated with 68% ICD therapy reduction (HR 0.32, p = .007) and 67% ICD shock reduction (HR 0.33, p = .030) in SVA patients and 44% ICD therapy reduction in those without SVA (HR 0.56, p = .030).

CONCLUSION

Programming ICDs in primary prevention patients based on current guidelines reduces therapy burden without increasing mortality in both SVA and non-SVA patients. A greater magnitude of reduced ICD therapy was found in those with supraventricular arrhythmias.

Programming of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention: outcomes at centers with high vs. low concordance with guidelines

BACKGROUND

While ICD therapy reduction programming strategies are recommended in current multi-society guidelines, concerns remain about a possible trade-off between the benefits of ICD therapy reduction and failure to treat episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. The study is to evaluate the outcomes of primary prevention patients followed in centers with high and low concordance with the 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with primary prevention ICD implantation from two centers between 2014 and 2016 were included. One center was classified as high guideline concordance center (HGC) with 47% (146/310) of patients with initial ICD concordant with the guidelines, and the other center was classified as low guideline concordance center (LGC) with only 1% (2/178) of patients with guideline-concordant initial ICD programming. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess risk of first ICD therapy (ATP or shock), first ICD shock, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were included (mean age, 66 ± 13 years). During a mean follow-up of 1.9 ± 0.9 years, patients followed at HGC were 63% less likely to receive any ICD therapy (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.42-0.99). There were no significant differences in the rate of first ICD shock (aHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34-1.52) or mortality (aHR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.47-3.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to primary prevention patients followed at LGC, primary prevention ICD patients followed at HGC received a significantly lower rate of ICD therapy, mainly from ATP reduction, without a difference in mortality during follow-up.

Predictors of mortality and clinical outcomes following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in elderly patients: A retrospective single-center cohort study

Background and aims

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are frequently used to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with high-risk arrhythmias. However, the use of ICD therapy in elderly patients beyond the predicted age of life expectancy is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the predictors of mortality and clinical outcomes following ICD implantation in elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 145 elderly patients aged 72 years and older who received ICD implantation between January 2010 and August 2015. We collected and analyzed baseline data, including clinical, demographic, and medical history, the reason for ICD therapy, procedural data, and echocardiography results. Follow-up data included the development of complications and mortality. The predictors of mortality were identified using the univariate and multivariable Cox regression models.

Results

During the median follow-up duration of 30.5 [18.0-48.0] months, 141 cases completed follow-up (mean age = 76.0 ± 3.7 years). Forty-four patients experienced at least one episode of ICD therapy. Inappropriate shock, recurrent shock, and device-related infection were the most frequent complications observed in our study. Of the 145 patients, 42 died during the follow-up period, with an average survival time of 22.4 months after ICD implantation. Among these patients, 11 received ICD for primary prevention, and 31 received it for secondary prevention. Cardiovascular problems were the leading cause of death. We found that a low baseline ejection fraction (EF) was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.90-0.98; p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that ICD therapy is a valuable treatment option for elderly patients beyond their predicted age of life expectancy. The study highlights the importance of baseline EF as a significant predictor of mortality in these patients.

Indications and management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in childhood hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Sudden cardiac death is the most common mode of death during childhood and adolescence in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and identifying those individuals at highest risk is a major aspect of clinical care. The mainstay of preventative therapy is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, which has been shown to be effective at terminating malignant ventricular arrhythmias in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy but can be associated with substantial morbidity. Accurate identification of those children at highest risk who would benefit most from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation while minimising the risk of complications is, therefore, essential. This position statement, on behalf of the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), reviews the currently available data on established and proposed risk factors for sudden cardiac death in childhood-onset hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and current approaches for risk stratification in this population. It also provides guidance on identification of individuals at risk of sudden cardiac death and optimal management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children and adolescents with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmias after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device: A Multicenter Study

One of the most concerning adverse events related to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is arrhythmia. To ascertain the relationship between vaccination and arrhythmic events, we studied the occurrence of arrhythmia in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) before and after a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Patients with CIEDs aged ≥18 who visited the CIED clinic at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Vajira hospital from August 2021 to February 2022 were included. Information about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and side effects was obtained. One hundred eighty patients were included in our study, which compared the incidence of arrhythmias in the 14 days post-vaccination to the 14 days before vaccination. The median age was 70 years. The number of patients who received one, two, and three doses of the vaccine was 180, 88, and 4, respectively. ChAdOx1 was the primary vaccine used in our institutes, accounting for 86% of vaccinations. The vaccination was significantly associated with a 73% increase incidence of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). In an adjusted model, factors associated with the incidence of SVT were the post-vaccination period, female sex, increasing BMI, chronic kidney disease, and a history of atrial fibrillation. Increased ventricular arrhythmia (VA) episodes were also associated with the post-vaccination period, female sex, decreasing BMI, and chronic kidney disease, but to a lesser degree than those with SVT episodes. No life-threatening arrhythmia was noted in this study. In conclusion, the incidence of arrhythmia in patients implanted with CIEDs was significantly increased after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Sudden cardiac death - a known unknown?

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major medical, economic and social problem. The estimated annual number of SCDs is approximately 4 million cases worldwide. Approximately 50% of SCDs are unexpected first manifestations of cardiac disease. The survival rate after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low even in countries with the most advanced health care systems. It all emphasizes the importance of prevention, in which implantable cardioverter-defibrillators play a dominant role. However, our ability to recognize high-risk patients remains insufficient. Moreover, a declining rate of shockable rhythm as the initial recording has been reported in the last decades. Despite numerous SCD studies and undisputed progress, there are still many unanswered questions.

Generic ICD programming and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Generic ICD programming, where shock-reduction programming is extrapolated from trials of one manufacturer to another, may reduce non-essential ICD therapies beyond that seen in randomized trials. However, the benefits and risks are unknown. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of a standardized programming protocol, based on generic programming, across manufacturers.

METHODS

We included all new ICDs in a single center (2009-2019). In 2013 a standardized programming protocol based on generic programming was introduced, incorporating high detection rates (200 bpm for primary prevention) and long detection (30/40 or equivalent in VF zone) for all patients. Patients were classified into three groups based on implant programming: pre-guideline (PS), post-guideline and guideline compliant (GC) and post-guideline but not guideline compliant (NGC). The end-points were the first occurrence of any device therapy (ATP or shock), ICD shock, syncope and all-cause mortality. Survival analysis was used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

1003 patients were included (mean follow-up 1519 ± 1005 days). In primary prevention patients (n = 583) freedom from ICD therapy (91.5% vs. 73.6%, p < .001) or shock (94.7% vs 84.8%, p = .02) were significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without significant increase in syncope or mortality. In secondary prevention patients (n = 420) freedom from any ICD therapy or any shock were non-significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without an increase in syncope or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary prevention patients a standardized programming protocol, incorporating generic programming, reduced the burden of ICD therapy without an increase in adverse outcomes.

Pregnancy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators

The number of patients of reproductive age with inherited and congenital heart disease receiving implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) is steadily increasing. Safely and effectively coordinating pregnancy in this high-risk cohort is important to optimise maternal-foetal outcomes. As members of the multidisciplinary team caring for pregnant patients with indications for ICD, cardiologists and electrophysiologists should be aware of the considerations and nuances involved in managing these patients. This article reviews the pathophysiology of arrhythmias, ICD implantation considerations, novel minimal fluoroscopy techniques and subcutaneous ICD. In addition, antenatal and device management during pregnancy and delivery are discussed.

Predictors of adoption and impact of evidence-based programming on the incidence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The ADVANCE III trial showed that a delayed-detection strategy reduces implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Here, we describe the adherence to and predictors of ADVANCE adoption and compare ICD therapy rates between patients with and without ADVANCE programming.

METHODS

This observational retrospective study analyzed patients implanted with Medtronic ICDs included from 2005 to 2016 in a Spanish national multicenter registry (UMBRELLA database; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01561144). Changes in ADVANCE programming adoption were described in relation to a) publication of the ADVANCE trial, b) implementation of an "ADVANCE awareness" campaign, and c) publication of an expert consensus statement. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of adoption. Therapy incidence rates were compared between groups by estimating the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) using negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

A total of 3528 patients were included. An ADVANCE strategy was used in 20% overall and in 44% at the end of the study. ADVANCE III adoption increased after trial publication, with less growth after an "ADVANCE awareness" campaign and after expert consensus statement publication. Predictors of ADVANCE adoption were as follows: ICD device with a nominal number of intervals to detect 30/40 (aOR, 4.4; 95%CI, 3.5-5.4), implantation by an electrophysiologist (aOR, 1.7; 95%CI, 1.4-2.2), and secondary prevention (aOR, 3.2; 95%CI, 2.6-3.9). Dual-chamber ICDs (aOR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.5-0.8) and cardiac resynchronization-defibrillators (aOR, 0.5; 95%CI, 0.4-0.7) were associated with lower adoption. ADVANCE programming was associated with reduced total therapy burden (aIRR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.69-0.86) and fewer inappropriate shocks (aIRR, 0.66; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

ADVANCE adoption remains modest and can be improved through evidence-driven selection of nominal ICD settings. ADVANCE programming is associated with reduced therapy rates in real-world ICD recipients.