Infection in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results of the S-ICD Post Approval Study

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.

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.

Simultaneous subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and leadless pacemaker implantation for patients at high risk of infection: a retrospective case series report

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP) are alternative options for patients at high risk of infection requiring ICD and pacing therapy. In this analysis, we described the simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP in patients with high infectious risk.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised patients referred to our institution for ICD implantation due to high-risk factors of infection.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2022, 13 patients were referred, including 11 with infected ICD and 2 for first ICD implantation in the presence of high-risk factors. In cases of infected ICD, successful extraction was performed using a mechanical dilatation technique. Reimplantation was delayed until resolution of infection with antibiotic therapy. The devices were implanted during a single procedure, with S-ICD implantation following LP placement for verification of sensing adequacy through surface ECG screening. Suitable vectors for sensing during inhibited and ventricular pacing were identified in all patients. Defibrillation testing was effective, and no issues with double counting or undersensing were observed. The postoperative period was uneventful, and during a median follow-up of 35 months, no complications or infections were reported. The median ventricular pacing percentage was 5%, and a single inappropriate shock episode due to myopotential interference was reported and resolved by reprogramming the sensing vector.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous implantation of S-ICD and LP is feasible and safe in patients at high risk of infection requiring both ICD and pacing therapy. This combined approach provides an effective solution for these patients.

Practical Considerations for Cardiac Electronic Devices Reimplantation Following Transvenous Lead Extraction Due to Related Endocarditis

Despite progress in implantation technology and prophylactic measures, infection complications related to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are still a major concern with negative impacts on patient outcomes and the health system's resources. Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most threatening CIED-related infections associated with high mortality rates and requires prompt diagnosis and management. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE), combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy, has been validated as an effective approach to treat patients with CIED-related IE. Though early complete removal is undoubtedly recommended for CIED-related IE or systemic infection, device reimplantation still represents a clinical challenge in these patients at high risk of reinfection, with many gaps in the current knowledge and international guidelines. Based on the available literature data and authors' experience, this review aims to address the practical and clinical considerations regarding CIED reimplantation following lead extraction for related IE, focusing on the reassessment of CIED indication, procedure timing, and the reimplanted CIED type and site. A tailored, multidisciplinary approach involving clinical cardiologists, electrophysiologists, cardiac imaging experts, cardiac surgeons, and infectious disease specialists is crucial to optimize these patients' management and clinical outcomes.

Transvenous versus subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in young cardiac arrest survivors

Secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are indicated in young patients presenting with aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD) because of ventricular arrhythmias. Transvenous-ICDs (TV-ICDs) are effective, established therapies supported by evidence. The significant morbidity associated with transvenous leads led to the development of the newer subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD). This review discusses the clinical considerations when selecting an ICD for the young patient presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The major benefits of TV-ICDs are their ability to pace (antitachycardia pacing [ATP], bradycardia support and cardiac resynchronisation therapy [CRT]) and the robust evidence base supporting their use. Other benefits include a longer battery life. Significant complications associated with transvenous leads include pneumothorax and tamponade during insertion and infection and lead failure in the long term. Comparatively, S-ICDs, by virtue of having no intravascular leads, prevent these complications. S-ICDs have been associated with a higher incidence of inappropriate shocks. Patients with an indication for bradycardia pacing, CRT or ATP (documented ventricular tachycardia) are seen as unsuitable for a S-ICD. If venous access is unsuitable or undesirable, S-ICDs should be considered given the patient is appropriately screened. There is a need for further randomised controlled trials to directly compare the two devices. TV-ICDs are an effective therapy for preventing SCD limited by significant lead-related complications. S-ICDs are an important development hindered largely by an inability to pace. Young patients stand to gain the most from a S-ICD as the cumulative risk of lead-related complications is high. A clinical framework to aid decision-making is presented.

Postapproval Study of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to avoid complications related to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) leads. Device safety and efficacy were demonstrated previously with atypical clinical patients or limited follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

The S-ICD PAS (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Post Approval Study) is a real-world, multicenter, registry of U.S. centers that was designed to assess long-term S-ICD safety and efficacy in a diverse group of patients and implantation centers.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in 86 U.S. centers with standard S-ICD indications and were observed for up to 5 years. Efficacy endpoints were first and final shock efficacy. Safety endpoints were complications directly related to the S-ICD system or implantation procedure. Endpoints were assessed using prespecified performance goals.

RESULTS

A total of 1,643 patients were prospectively enrolled, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years. All prespecified safety and efficacy endpoint goals were met. Shock efficacy rates for discrete episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were 98.4%, and they did not differ significantly across follow-up years (P = 0.68). S-ICD-related and electrode-related complication-free rates were 93.4% and 99.3%, respectively. Only 1.6% of patients had their devices replaced by a TV-ICD for a pacing need. Cumulative all-cause mortality was 21.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest prospective study of the S-ICD to date, all study endpoints were met, despite a cohort with more comorbidities than in most previous trials. Complication rates were low and shock efficacy was high. These results demonstrate the 5-year S-ICD safety and efficacy for a large, diverse cohort of S-ICD recipients. (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator [S-ICD] System Post Approval Study [PAS]; NCT01736618).

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.

Procedure, management, and outcome of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator extraction in clinical practice

AIMS

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy is expanding rapidly. However, there are few data on the S-ICD extraction procedure and subsequent patient management. The aim of this analysis was to describe the procedure, management, and outcome of S-ICD extractions in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled consecutive patients who required complete S-ICD extraction at 66 Italian centres. From 2013 to 2022, 2718 patients undergoing de novo implantation of an S-ICD were enrolled. Of these, 71 required complete S-ICD system extraction (17 owing to infection). The S-ICD system was successfully extracted in all patients, and no complications were reported; the median procedure duration was 40 (25th-75th percentile: 20-55) min. Simple manual traction was sufficient to remove the lead in 59 (84%) patients, in whom lead-dwelling time was shorter [20 (9-32) months vs. 30 (22-41) months; P = 0.032]. Hospitalization time was short in the case of both non-infectious [2 (1-2) days] and infectious indications [3 (1-6) days]. In the case of infection, no patients required post-extraction intravenous antibiotics, the median duration of any antibiotic therapy was 10 (10-14) days, and the re-implantation was performed during the same procedure in 29% of cases. No complications arose over a median of 21 months.

CONCLUSION

The S-ICD extraction was safe and easy to perform, with no complications. Simple traction of the lead was successful in most patients, but specific tools could be needed for systems implanted for a longer time. The peri- and post-procedural management of S-ICD extraction was free from complications and not burdensome for patients and healthcare system.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

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