Appropriate and inappropriate shocks in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: An international multicenter study

Candidacy and long-term outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in current practice in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

In patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) S-ICD is usually the preferred option as pacing is generally not indicated. However, limited data are available on its current practice adoption and long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Consecutive HCM patients with S-ICD implanted between 2013 and 2021 in 3 international centers were enrolled in this observational study. Baseline, procedural and follow-up data were regularly collected. Efficacy and safety were compared with a cohort of HCM patients implanted with a tv-ICD.

RESULTS

Seventy patients (64% males) were implanted with S-ICD at 41 ± 15 years, whereas 168 patients with tv-ICD at 49 ± 16 years. For S-ICD patients, mean ESC SCD risk score was 4,5 ± 1.9%: 25 (40%) at low-risk, 17 (27%) at intermediate and 20 (33%) at high-risk. Patients were followed-up for 5.1 ± 2.3 years. Two patients (0.6 per 100-person-years, vs 0.4 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.45) received an appropriate shock on VF, 17 (24%) were diagnosed with de-novo AF. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 4 patients (1.2 per 100-person-years, vs 0.9 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.74), all before Smart-Pass algorithm implementation. Four patients experienced device-related adverse events (1.2 per 100-person-years, vs 1 per 100 person-years with tv-ICD, p = 0.35%).

CONCLUSIONS

S-ICDs were often implanted in patients with an overall low-intermediate ESC SCD risk, reflecting both the inclusion of additional risk markers and a lower decision threshold. S-ICDs in HCM patients followed for over 5 years showed to be effective in conversion of VF and safe. Greater scrutiny may be required to avoid overtreatment in patients with milder risk profiles.

Validation of the PRAETORIAN score in a large subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator collective: Usefulness in clinical routine

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of unsuccessful conversion of ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation testing (DFT) with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), the PRAETORIAN score has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to validate the PRAETORIAN score in a large S-ICD collective.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of S-ICD patients receiving intraoperative DFT was performed. DFT was performed using a stepwise protocol with 65-J standard polarity, change of polarity, increase to 80 J, and repositioning if necessary. If all DFTs failed, we switched to a transvenous ICD.

RESULTS

Overall, 398 patients were analyzed (268 male [67.3%]; mean age 42.4 ± 15.9 years; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2). Successful DFT with the first ICD shock was observed in 264 patients (66.3%). One hundred fourteen patients were defibrillated with the second (n = 104) or third (n = 10) DFT after changing shock polarity and/or shock energy. Overall, 20 patients needed at least 3 DFT (ie, 80 J and/or re-positioning). The majority (n = 88 [65.7%]) of DFT failures occurred before 2015 with the first-generation S-ICD. PRAETORIAN score was an independent predictor of DFT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.007; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.011 P ≤.001), while whereas BMI alone was not (P = .31). Presence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = .004) was predictive for at least 1 unsuccessful DFT in our multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

PRAETORIAN score proved to be a useful and valid predictive tool for successful DFT, whereas BMI only had a limited role. Patients with HCM were at increased risk for DFT failure or needed higher DFT energy.

Differences in underlying cardiac substrate among S-ICD recipients and its impact on long-term device-related outcomes: Real-world insights from the iSUSI registry

BACKGROUND

Outcome comparisons among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients with nonischemic cardiomyopathies are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in device-related outcomes among S-ICD recipients with different structural substrates.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the i-SUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator registry) project were grouped according to the underlying substrate (ischemic vs nonischemic) and subgrouped into dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome (BrS), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The main outcome of our study was to compare the rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks and device-related complications.

RESULTS

Among 1698 patients, the most common underlying substrate was ischemic (31.7%), followed by dilated cardiomyopathy (20.5%), BrS (10.8%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (8.5%), and ARVC (4.4%). S-ICD for primary prevention was more common in the nonischemic cohort (70.9% vs 65.4%; P = .037). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 26.5 (12.6-42.8) months, no differences were observed in appropriate shocks between ischemic and nonischemic patients (4.8%/y vs 3.9%/y; log-rank, P = .282). ARVC (9.0%/y; hazard ratio [HR] 2.492; P = .001) and BrS (1.8%/y; HR 0.396; P = .008) constituted the groups with the highest and lowest rates of appropriate shocks, respectively. Device-related complications did not differ between groups (ischemic: 6.4%/y vs nonischemic: 6.1%/y; log-rank, P = .666), nor among underlying substrates (log-rank, P = .089). Nonischemic patients experienced higher rates of inappropriate shocks than did ischemic S-ICD recipients (4.4%/y vs 3.0%/y; log-rank, P = .043), with patients with ARVC (9.9%/y; P = .001) having the highest risk, even after controlling for confounders (adjusted HR 2.243; confidence interval 1.338-4.267; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Most S-ICD recipients were primary prevention nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Among those, patients with ARVC tend to receive the most frequent appropriate and inappropriate shocks and patients with BrS the least frequent appropriate shocks.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention in cardiomyopathies

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are often used as primary prevention strategy for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young individuals. This study analyzed appropriate therapies, complications and inappropriate shocks in the real-world Indian population.

METHODS

All patients in the cardiomyopathy cohort under follow up who had ICD implanted as a primary prevention strategy were studied. The objective was to assess the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies, inappropriate therapies and complications. ICD was interrogated and stored electrograms analyzed. Underlying arrhythmia or conditions resulting in appropriate or inappropriate ICD therapy were studied. Correlation and regression studies was done to assess for the predictors of appropriate therapy.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were followed up for a mean follow-up duration of 4.4 ± 3.1 years with total follow up of 220.2 patient years. Appropriate ICD therapy was delivered in 16 out of 50 (32%) patients, with 65 appropriate therapies (median 2 per patient, range: 0-20). Inappropriate therapy delivered in 7 of the 50 (14%) patients, with 44 inappropriate therapies (median 5 per patient, range: 0-20). Complications occurred in 8 of the 50 (16%) patients. Overall, the rate of appropriate therapy was 29.5 per 100 patient years, that of inappropriate therapy was 19.9 per 100 patient years and the rate of complications was 3.6 per 100 patient years.

CONCLUSIONS

When implanted for primary prevention in patients with cardiomyopathies over a mean period of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, appropriate ICD therapy was delivered in 32% patients. However, inappropriate therapy (14% patients) and complications (16% patients) were also common.

Arrhythmias and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Unravelling the Connection

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) results from gene mutations affecting cardiac sarcomeres and is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. With a prevalence of 1:200-1:500 in the general population, HCM is characterised by a hypertrophied and non-dilated left ventricle with predominant involvement of the interventricular septum. The myocardium's structural and intracellular factors, combined with triggers such as physical exertion, autonomic dysfunction, and ischemia, can lead to reentry events, and atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF) which is common among HCM patients. To manage the increased risk of mortality arising from congestive heart failure and thromboembolism, in patients with AF long-term anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic drugs are employed. HCM patients may also encounter supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias, such as nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular premature beats, which can potentially lead to sudden cardiac death and necessitate treatment with implanted defibrillators. Physicians must comprehensively analyse clinical, anatomical, hemodynamic, rhythmic, functional, and genetic characteristics to identify HCM patients at high risk of sudden death. This article aims to discuss the pathophysiology of arrhythmia in HCM and clinical recommendations for various ventricular and atrial fibrillation including catheter ablation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

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

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.

Art and science of risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Current state, unknowns, and future directions

The progress in the management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) over the last several decades has resulted in great improvements in quality of life and overall survival for HCM patients. Yet, sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias is among the common causes of HCM-related mortality. SCD risk stratification is a central and often challenging domain in the care of the HCM patient. Distinguishing the individuals most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) from those truly at a low risk of SCD in whom an ICD is not necessary is a nuanced process. Clinicians need to carefully balance the potential benefit and risks of ICDs, particularly in young patients. Because of intense investigations in diverse HCM cohorts globally, two main approaches to SCD risk stratification in HCM have emerged, one based on major SCD risk factors and one based on a mathematically derived risk score. In this overview, we discuss the current state, latest advances and remaining unknowns about established and novel markers of risk of SCD in HCM. We also review how the risk factor- and risk score-based assessments can and should be used in conjunction to enhance rather than contradict each other in facilitating informed ICD decision-making in contemporary clinical practice.

Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry

AIMS

Patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies are usually younger and have a predominantly arrhythmia-related prognosis; they have nearly normal life expectancy thanks to the protection against sudden cardiac death provided by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD and has evolved over the years. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of inappropriate shocks (IS), appropriate therapies, and device-related complications in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who underwent modern S-ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled consecutive patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who had undergone implantation of a modern S-ICD from January 2016 to December 2020 and who were followed up until December 2022. A total of 1338 S-ICD implantations were performed within the observation period. Of these patients, 628 had cardiomyopathies or channelopathies. The rate of IS at 12 months was 4.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-6.9] in patients with cardiomyopathies and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.1-3.8) in patients with channelopathies (P = 0.032). No significant differences were noted over a median follow-up of 43 months [hazard ratio (HR): 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45-1.31; P = 0.351]. The rate of appropriate shocks at 12 months was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.1-4.1) in patients with cardiomyopathies and 2.1% (95% CI: 0.6-5.3) in patients with channelopathies (P = 1.0). The rate of device-related complications was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3-2.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.2-6.8), respectively (P = 0.074). No significant differences were noted over the entire follow-up. The need for pacing was low, occurring in 0.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Modern S-ICDs may be a valuable alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies. Our findings suggest that modern S-ICD therapy carries a low rate of IS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Clinical course of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a transvenous or subcutaneous defibrillator

AIMS

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at risk of sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator complications are of concern. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) does not use transvenous leads and is expected to reduce complications. However, it does not provide bradycardia and anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). The aim of this study was to compare appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions, complications, disease-related adverse events and mortality between HCM patients implanted with a S- or transvenous (TV)-ICD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive HCM patients implanted with a S- (n = 216) or TV-ICD (n = 211) were enrolled. Propensity-adjusted cumulative Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to compare 5-year event-free survival and the risk of events. The S-ICD patients had lower 5-year risk of appropriate (HR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.15-0.65; P = 0.002) and inappropriate (HR: 0.44; 95%CI: 0.20-0.95; P = 0.038) ICD interventions, driven by a high incidence of ATP therapy in the TV-ICD group. The S- and TV-ICD patients experienced similar 5-year rate of device-related complications, albeit the risk of major lead-related complications was lower in S-ICD patients (HR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.038-0.79; P = 0.023). The TV- and S-ICD patients displayed similar risk of disease-related complications (HR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.27-1.52; P = 0.309) and mortality (HR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.29-1.87; P = 0.521).

CONCLUSION

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a S-ICD had lower 5-year risk of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies as well as of major lead-related complications as compared to those implanted with a TV-ICD. Long-term comparative follow-up studies will clarify whether the lower incidence of major lead-related complications will translate into a morbidity or survival benefit.

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.

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.

Deceleration and acceleration capacities of heart rate in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: results of a five-year prospective study

Aim. To study the features of deceleration capacity (DC) and acceleration capacity (AC) in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and assess the correlation of these indicators with known complications and risk factors for sudden cardiac death (SCD).

Material and methods. A total of 50 patients with HCM were examined. Comparable by sex and age, the control group included 50 individuals without cardiovascular diseases. All patients underwent 24-hour electrocardiographic monitoring with the determination of DC and AC. The follow-up period lasted 5 years. Lethal outcomes were recorded in 6%, including SCD — 4%.

Results. Patients with HCM were characterized by significantly lower mean DC — 5,5 [3,7; 7,4] vs 7,8 [7,1; 8,5] ms (p=0,0001) and significantly higher AC– -7,4 [-8,9; -5,8] vs -9,3 [-10,0; -8,6] ms (p=0,001) compared with the control group. In 36% of patients with HCM, pathological values of DC ≤4,5 ms were detected, while in all individuals in the control group, DC corresponded to a favorable prognosis (p=0,001). In patients with and without nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), a decrease in DC was detected in 56% and 25,5% (p=0,043), respectively, while with and without heart failure (HF) — in 78% and 27% (p=0,016), respectively. In patients with HF (p=0,003) and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (p=0,023), mean DC values were significantly lower than in patients without these complications. HF was an independent predictor of DC reduction. DC decrease was not associated with an increase in SCD risk estimated using the HCM Risk-SCD calculator.

Conclusion. Patients with HCM compared with healthy individuals are characterized by lower DC and higher AC values. Among patients with HCM, a decrease in DC is typical for patients with a more severe disease course (HF, AF, NSVT). However, the rationale for using this indicator in SCD risk stratification needs to be clarified.

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.

A real-world experience of subcutaneous and transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators-comparison with the PRAETORIAN study

Background

PRAETORIAN is the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) in comparison with transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). We retrospectively reviewed electronic records of patients with ICD implanted over the past 6 years, with the primary objective to compare our real-world single tertiary center experience with the randomized data from the PRAETORIAN study.

Methods

Seventy S-ICD patients were compared with 197 TV-ICD patients, from July 2014 to June 2020 retrospectively, over a median period of 1304 days (296-2451 days). Primary composite endpoints included inappropriate shocks and device-related malfunctions.

Results

Patients with S-ICD implantation were younger than those who received TV-ICD (mean, 49.7 years vs 63.9 years, p < .001). About 31.4% of S-ICDs were implanted for secondary prevention, and 58.6% of S-ICD patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 32.5% (range: 10-67%). S-ICDs and TV-ICD had statistically similar inappropriate shocks (4.3% vs 4.6%, p = .78), device-related complications (11.4% vs 9.1%, p = .93), and the overall primary endpoints (15.7% vs 13.7%, p = .68). The findings remained the same even after age and gender adjustments and time-dependent analysis.

Conclusion

Although single-center experience with a small number of S-ICD patients, results of the PRAETORIAN study has been replicated in our real-world experience of S-ICD and TV-ICD implantations across diverse etiologies, indications, and age groups confirming the comparable performance of S-ICD and TV-ICD when implanted in selected patients.

Sudden cardiac death in cardiomyopathies: acting upon "acceptable" risk in the personalized medicine era

Patients with cardiomyopathies are confronted with the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) throughout their lifetime. Despite the fact that SCD is relatively rare, prognostic stratification is an integral part of physician-patient discussion, with the goal of risk modification and prevention. The current approach is based on a concept of "acceptable risk." However, there are intrinsic problems with an algorithm-based approach to risk management, magnified by the absence of robust evidence underlying clinical decision support tools, which can make high- versus low-risk classifications arbitrary. Strategies aimed at risk reduction range from selecting patients for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to disqualification from competitive sports. These clinical options, especially when implying the use of finite financial resources, are often delivered from the physician's perspective citing decision-making algorithms. When the burden of intervention-related risks or financial costs is deemed higher than an "acceptable risk" of SCD, the patient's perspective may not be appropriately considered. Designating a numeric threshold of "acceptable risk" has ethical implications. One could reasonably ask "acceptable to whom?" In an era when individual choice and autonomy are pillars of the physician-patient relationship, the subjective aspects of perceived risk should be acknowledged and be part of shared decision-making. This is particularly true when the lack of a strong scientific evidence base makes a dichotomous algorithm-driven approach suboptimal for unmitigated translation to clinical practice.

Predicting inappropriate S-ICD® episodes by simple 12-lead surface ECG parameters

AIMS

The present study aims at analyzing the role of a preimplantation 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) on the prediction of inappropriate S-ICD® episodes.

METHODS

N=116 screened patients (pts) with an S-ICD® and a follow-up of at least 6 months were included. A preimplantation 12-lead ECG (50 mm/s, 10 mm/mV) was analyzed with regard to QRS and T-wave amplitude, T wave concordance or discordance and QRS/T wave ratio in all 12 leads. To ensure an exact determination of parameters Datinf® Measure software was used. Results were correlated to the occurrence of oversensing of cardiac signals during follow-up.

RESULTS

N = 116 pts. (63,8% male, mean age 40,9 ± 15,5 years) were included (primary prevention in 47.4% of pts). The most frequent cardiac diseases were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in n = 25 (21,6%), electrical heart disease in n = 20 (17,2%), and dilated cardiomyopathy in n = 17 (14,7%). Mean follow-up was 740 ± 549 days. During follow- up n = 17 (14.7%) pts. experienced n = 27 inappropriate episodes due to T-wave oversensing. Besides HCM (OR 6.16, CI 1.79-21.15, p = 0.004) a discordance of QRS to T-wave in lead I (OR 6.5, CI 1.86-22.67, p = 0.003) was found to be a strong predictor for inappropriate shocks. In multivariate analysis the pts. with a combination of both had an 8.4-fold higher risk of misclassification of intracardiac signals (p = 0.003) with consecutive inappropriate therapy.

CONCLUSION

A discordance of QRS to T-wave in lead I turned out to be a strong predictor for future inappropriate shocks in a typical S-ICD® cohort with special impact on HCM pts.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Can it overtake its transvenous counterpart

Over the past decade, the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has provided cardiologists with an option to provide both primary or secondary prevention treatment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) without the associated risks that come with the use of intracardiac leads. S-ICD may prove to be a useful option in those who are young, have thromboembolic risk, immunodeficiency states, unfavorable anatomy due to adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). This article reviews the existing literature to determine whether S-ICD can prove to be a safe alternative in comparison to Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) and in which patient population should S-ICD be considered over TV-ICD.

Pitfalls of the S-ICD therapy: experiences from a large tertiary centre

Aim

The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) has evolved to a potential first option for many patients who have to be protected from sudden cardiac death. Many trials have underlined a similar performance regarding its effectiveness in relation to transvenous ICDs and have shown the expected benefits concerning infective endocarditis and lead failure. However, there have also been problems due to the peculiarities of the device, such as oversensing and myopotentials. In this study, we present patients from a large tertiary centre suffering from complications with an S-ICD and propose possible solutions.

Methods and results

All S-ICD patients who experienced complications related to the device (n = 40) of our large-scale single-centre S-ICD registry (n = 351 patients) were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, complications occurring and solutions to these problems were documented over a mean follow-up of 50 months. In most cases (n = 23), patients suffered from oversensing (18 cases with T wave or P wave oversensing, 5 due to myopotentials). Re-programming successfully prevented further oversensing episode in 13/23 patients. In 9 patients, generator or lead-related complications, mostly due to infectious reasons (5/9), occurred. Further problems consisted of ineffective shocks in one patient and need for antibradycardia stimulation in 2 patients and indication for CRT in 2 other patients. In total, the S-ICD had to be extracted in 10 patients. 7 of them received a tv-ICD subsequently, 3 patients refused re-implantation of any ICD. One other patient kept the ICD but had antitachycardic therapy deactivated due to inappropriate shocks for myopotential oversensing.

Conclusion

The S-ICD is a valuable option for many patients for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Nonetheless, certain problems are immanent to the S-ICD (limited re-programming options, size of the generator) and should be addressed in future generations of the S-ICD.

Graphic abstract

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-Are there predictors of appropriate therapy?

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who warrant a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is crucial. ICDs are effective in terminating life-threatening arrhythmias; however, ICDs carry risks of complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of appropriate ICD therapies, inappropriate shocks, and device-related complications in patients with HCM and primary prevention ICDs.

METHODS

All patients with HCM who underwent primary prevention ICD implantation at Toronto General Hospital between September 2000 and December 2017 were identified. Therapies (shocks or antitachycardia pacing) for ventricular tachycardia >180 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation were considered appropriate.

RESULTS

Three hundred two patients were followed for a mean 6.1 ± 4.3 years (1801 patient-years of follow-up). Thirty-eight patients (12.6%) received at least 1 appropriate ICD therapy (2.3%/y); the 5-year cumulative probability of receiving appropriate ICD therapy was 9.6%. None of the conventional risk factors nor the European Society of Cardiology risk score was associated with appropriate ICD therapy. In multivariable analysis, age < 40 years at implantation and atrial fibrillation were independent predictors of appropriate ICD therapy. In a subgroup of patients who had undergone cardiac magnetic resonance imaging before ICD implantation, severe late gadolinium enhancement was the strongest predictor of appropriate ICD therapies. ICD-related complications or inappropriate shocks occurred in 87 patients (28.8%), with an inappropriate shock rate of 2.1%/y; the 5-year cumulative probability was 10.7%.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of appropriate ICD therapies in patients with HCM and primary prevention ICDs is lower than previously reported; a high proportion of patients suffer from an ICD-related complication. Traditional risk factors have low predictive utility. Severe late gadolinium enhancement, atrial fibrillation, and young age are important predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in HCM.

Over- and undersensing-pitfalls of arrhythmia detection with implantable devices and wearables

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a cornerstone of arrhythmia and heart failure detection as well as management. In recent years new kinds of devices have emerged which can be used subcutaneously or worn on the skin. In particular for large-scale arrhythmia monitoring, small, unobtrusive gadgets seem positioned to upend paradigms and care delivery. However, the performance of CIEDs and wearables is only as good as their sensing and detection capacities. Whether for pacing, defibrillation or diagnostic monitoring, the device must be able to process and filter the sensed signal to reduce noise and to exclude irrelevant physiological signals. The demands on sensing and detection quality will differ depending on how the information is applied. With a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter/defibrillator, withheld or erroneous therapy can have severe consequences and accurate and reliable detection of cardiac function is crucial. Monitoring devices are usually used in risk assessment and management, with greater tolerance for isolated artefacts or lower quality of readings. This review discusses sensing and detection and the performance to date by CIEDs as well as subcutaneous and wearable devices.