Longevity of model-3501 subcutaneous implantable defibrillator leads in clinical practice. Viani: Longevity of S-ICD leads

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 tachyarrhythmias. 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.

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.

Safety of Sports for Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (SPORT S-ICD): study rationale and protocol

Background

Recent studies suggest that participation in recreational and even competitive sports is generally safe for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, these studies included only patients with implanted transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). Nowadays, subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is a safe and effective alternative and is increasingly implanted in younger ICD candidates. Data on the safety of sport participation for patients with implanted S-ICD systems is urgently needed.

Objectives

The goal of the study is to quantify the risks (or determine the safety) of sports participation for athletes with an S-ICD, which will guide shared decision making for athletes requiring an ICD and/or wishing to return to sports after implantation.

Methods

The SPORT S-ICD (Sports for Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator) study is an international, multicenter, prospective, noninterventional, observational study, designed specifically to collect data on the safety of sports participation among patients with implanted S-ICD systems who regularly engage in sports activities.

Results

A total of 450 patients will undergo baseline assessment including baseline characteristics, indication for S-ICD implantation, arrhythmic history, S-ICD data and programming, and data regarding sports activities. LATITUDE Home Monitoring information will be regularly transferred to the study coordinator for analysis.

Conclusion

The results of the study will aid in shaping clinical decision making, and if the tested hypothesis will be proven, it will allow the safe continuation of sports for patients with an implanted S-ICD.

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.

Sense-B-noise: an enigmatic cause for inappropriate shocks in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are well established. However, inappropriate shocks (IAS) remain a source of concern since S-ICDs offer very limited troubleshooting options. In our multicentre case series, we describe several patients who experienced IAS due to a previously unknown S-ICD system issue.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We observed six patients suffering from this novel IAS entity. The IAS occurred exclusively in primary or alternate S-ICD sensing vector configuration (therefore called 'Sense-B-noise'). IAS were caused by non-physiologic oversensing episodes characterized by intermittent signal saturation, diminished QRS amplitudes, and disappearance of the artefacts after the IAS. Noise/oversensing could not be provoked by manipulation, X-ray did not show evidence for lead/header issues and impedance measurements were within normal limits. The pooled experience of our centres implies that up to ∼5% of S-ICDs may be affected. The underlying root cause was discussed extensively with the manufacturer but remains unknown and is under further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Sense-B-noise is a novel cause for IAS due to non-physiologic signal oversensing, arising from a previously unknown S-ICD system issue. Sense-B-noise may be suspected if episodes of signal saturation in primary or alternate vector configuration are present, oversensing cannot be provoked, and X-ray and electrical measurements appear normal. The issue can be resolved by reprogramming the device to secondary sensing vector.