Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: An analysis of Italian clinical practice and its evolution

Preoperative Prediction of Shock Impedance for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Using Chest Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

High shock impedance is associated with conversion failure among patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD). Currently, there is no preoperative assessment method for predicting high shock impedance. This study examined the efficacy of chest computed tomography (CT) as a preoperative evaluation tool to assess the shock impedance of S-ICDs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The amount of adipose tissue adjacent to the device and anteroposterior diameter at the basal heart region were measured preoperatively using chest CT. We examined the correlation between these measurements and shock impedance at the conversion test. We enrolled 43 patients with S-ICDs (mean [±SD] age 54±15 years; body mass index 23±4 kg/m2; PRAETORIAN score 30-270 points; amount of adipose tissue 1,250±716 cm3), who underwent intraoperative conversion tests by inducing ventricular fibrillation, which was terminated with a 65-J shock. A sufficient concordance correlation coefficient was observed between the shock impedance and the amount of adipose tissue (r=0.616, P<0.01) and anteroposterior diameter (r=0.645, P<0.01). In multiple regression analysis, the amount of adipose tissue (β=0.439, P=0.009) and anteroposterior diameter (β=0.344, P=0.038) were identified as independent predictive factors of shock impedance.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative CT-measured amount of adipose tissue and basal heart anteroposterior diameter are independent predictors of shock impedance. These parameters may be more accurate in identifying higher shock impedance in patients with S-ICDs.

Serratus anterior plane block and postoperative pain control in obese patients undergoing S-ICD implantation: A case series and literature analysis

We report five case series of obese patients with severe left ventricular ejection fraction impairment undergoing Serratus Anterior Plane Block during S-ICD Implantation. This anesthesia approach has a reduced impact on the patient's hemodynamics and adequately manages postprocedural pain.

Abstract

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) procedures are frequently performed under analgosedation or general anesthesia, leading to prolonged postoperative hospital stays and increased costs. This anesthetic technique may also have a greater hemodynamic impact, particularly in obese and cardiac patients. However, an alternative anesthetic technique can be employed: ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block (US-SAPB). We analyzed the anesthetic clinical course in 5 patients, 3 males and 2 females, who were obese (BMI ≥ 30) and underwent S-ICD implantation for primary prevention using a two-incision intermuscular technique and ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%. It significantly facilitated pain control during the procedure and, especially, in the postoperative phase. However, the data available in the literature are mostly derived from case reports and small comparative studies. Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size and direct comparison with general anesthesia or deep sedation are needed.

Combined subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker devices in complex congenital heart disease: a single-center experienced based study

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) are widely accepted therapy in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death (SCD) when pacing is not required. Occasionally, pacemaker (PM)-dependent CHD patients will subsequently develop an indication for a cardioverter defibrillator. The use of S-ICD in complex CHD patients who have had already PM devices implanted implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients in unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely.

METHODS

We review the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in complex CHD with previous PM and discuss its usefulness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

From a large cohort of 345 patients enrolled in the S-ICD Monaldi care registry, which encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 11 consecutive complex CHD patients (10M/1F aged 40.4 ±18.4 years) who underwent S-ICD implant after a previous PM implant, from February 2015 to October 2022. Mean follow-up was 25.5 ± 22 months. All the patients showed a good compliance to the device system with no complications (infections or skin erosions).

CONCLUSIONS

In complex CHD with already implanted PM devices, S-ICD implant appears to be a safe alternative to PM upgrading to transvenous ICD system, avoiding abandoned leads or life-threatening lead extraction. However, there are important issues with regard to testing and programming that need to be addressed at the time of implantation.

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.

Real-Life Inter-Rater Variability of the PRAETORIAN Score Values

(1) Background: The PRAETORIAN score is a tool developed for postoperative evaluation of the position of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems. The aim of our study was to evaluate the real-life inter-rater variability of the PRAETORIAN score, based on chest radiographs of S-ICD patients reviewed by independent clinical raters. (2) Methods: Postoperative chest X-rays of patients that underwent S-ICD implantation were evaluated by five clinical raters who gave values of the PRAETORIAN score. Ratings were then compared in a fully crossed manner to determine the inter-rater variability of the attributed scores. (3) Results: In total, 87 patients were included in the study. In the case of the most important final risk category of the PRAETORIAN score, the mean Light's kappa was 0.804, the Fleiss' kappa was 0.249, and the intraclass correlation was 0.38. The final risk category was identically determined by all five raters in 75.86% of patients, by four raters in 14.94%, and by three raters in 9.20% of patients. (4) Conclusions: The overall inter-rater variability of the PRAETORIAN score in a group of electrophysiologists experienced in S-ICD implantation, yet previously naive to the PRAETORIAN score, and self-trained in its utilization, was only modest in our study. Appropriate use of the score might require training of clinical raters.

"Shift and cover technique": conservative management of complications for the rescue of S-ICD subcutaneous implantable defibrillator systems

BACKGROUND

The risk of complications has been shown to be lower with subcutaneous implantable defibrillator (S-ICD) than with conventional ICDs. Given the low frequency of complications, experience of how to manage them is limited. In this paper, we describe generator- and lead-related complications recorded in a series of S-ICD patients, and we propose our conservative approach to managing them.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of S-ICD patients who were referred to our institution owing to generator- or lead-related complications requiring surgical intervention. With our "shift and cover" approach, the system component involved is moved from its original position to an alternative, more protected location. In the case of the generator, this involves moving it to an intermuscular pocket. In the case of infections at the parasternal scar, the electrode sleeve is moved away from its original location, stitched, and then covered with the muscular fascia.

RESULTS

Fourteen S-ICD patients were referred to our institution owing to system-related complications. Complications involved the generator in 7 cases (deep pocket infections with erosion, extrusion, or pain), the lead in 5 cases (parasternal infections at the xyphoid incision site), and both the generator and the lead in 2 cases. Complications were managed without completely removing the device and resolved in a single surgical session with no intraoperative complications. During defibrillation testing, the first shock at 65 J was effective in all patients. The shock impedance after revision was significantly lower than that measured during first implantation (59 ± 10 Ohm versus 86 ± 24 Ohm, P = 0.013). In all cases, the cosmetic result was satisfactory. No complications or recurrent infections were reported at the 12-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed conservative approach was successful in managing S-ICD complications. The revision procedure allowed to optimize the system configuration in terms of the defibrillation vector, resulting in lower shock impedance values and better device positioning.

The “Defibrillation Testing, Why Not?” survey. Testing of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillators in the Italian clinical practice

Background

Defibrillation testing (DT) can be omitted in patients undergoing transvenous implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (T-ICD) implantation, but it is still recommended for patients at risk for a high defibrillation threshold and for ICD generator changes. Moreover, DT is still recommended on implantation of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). The aim of the present survey was to analyze the current practice of DT during T-ICD and S-ICD implantations.

Methods

In March 2021, an ad hoc questionnaire on the current performance of DT and the standard practice adopted during testing was completed at 72 Italian centers implanting S-ICD and T-ICD.

Results

48 (67%) operators reported never performing DT during de-novo T-ICD implantations, while no operators perform it systematically. The remaining respondents perform it for patients at risk for a high defibrillation threshold. DT is never performed at T-ICD generator change. At the time of de-novo S-ICD implantation, DT is never performed by 9 (13%) operators and performed systematically by 48 (66%). The remaining operators frequently omit DT in patients with more severe systolic dysfunction. DT is not performed at S-ICD generator change by 92% of operators. DT is conducted by delivering a first shock energy of 65 J by 60% of operators, while the remaining 40% test lower energy values.

Conclusions

In current clinical practice, most operators omit DT at T-ICD implantation, even when still recommended in the guidelines. DT is also frequently omitted at S-ICD implantation, and a wide variability exists among operators in the procedures followed during DT.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The Times They Are a-Changin'

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at high risk of sudden cardiac death. The heterogeneity of clinical scenarios in HCM and the availability of ICDs with distinct characteristics emphasizes the need for selecting the right device for the right patient. There is growing awareness that unnecessarily complex devices can lead to short- and long-term complications without adding significant clinical benefits. Young patients have the greatest potential years of life gained from the ICD but are also most exposed to device-related complications. This increases the complexity of decision-making of ICD prescription in these often otherwise well patients in whom device selection should be tailored to preserve survival benefit without introducing morbidity. In the light of the multiple clinical phenotypes characterizing HCM, the present article offers evidence-based perspectives helpful in predicting the individual impact of the ICD and choosing the most appropriate device.

Patient acceptance of subcutaneous versus transvenous defibrillator systems: A multi-center experience

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD.

METHODS

Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation.

RESULTS

176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD.

Lead Abandonment and Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (S-ICD) Implantation in a Cohort of Patients With ICD Lead Malfunction

Background: When an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead becomes non-functional, a recommendation currently exists for either lead abandonment or removal. Lead abandonment and subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) implantation may represent an additional option for patients who do not require pacing. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of a strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation in the setting of lead malfunction.

Methods: We analyzed all consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads and compared their outcomes with those of patients who underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a single-chamber transvenous ICD (T-ICD).

Results: Forty-three patients underwent S-ICD implantation after abandonment of malfunctioning leads, while 62 patients underwent extraction and subsequent reimplantation of a new T-ICD. The two groups were comparable. In the extraction group, no major complications occurred during extraction, while the procedure failed and an S-ICD was implanted in 4 patients. During a median follow-up of 21 months, 3 major complications or deaths occurred in the S-ICD group and 11 in the T-ICD group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.29–3.94; P = 0.912). Minor complications were 4 in the S-ICD group and 5 in the T-ICD group (HR 2.13; 95% CI 0.49–9.24; P = 0.238).

Conclusions: In the event of ICD lead malfunction, extraction avoids the potential long-term risks of abandoned leads. Nonetheless the strategy of lead abandonment and S-ICD implantation was feasible and safe, with no significant increase in adverse outcomes, and may represent an option in selected clinical settings. Further studies are needed to fully understand the potential risks of lead abandonment.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02275637

Acute shock efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator according to the implantation technique

BACKGROUND

The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted.

AIMS

We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique.

RESULTS

A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.

Rate and impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization of complications requiring surgical revision: Subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy

INTRODUCTION

Comparison data on management of device-related complications and their impact on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) and transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) are lacking. We designed this prospective, multicentre, observational registry to compare the rate, nature, and impact of long-term device-related complications requiring surgical revision on patient outcome and healthcare utilization between patients undergoing S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1099 consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD or TV-ICD implantation were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 169 matched pairs. Rate, nature, management, and impact on patient outcome of device-related complications were analyzed and compared between two groups. During a mean follow-up of 30 months, device-related complications requiring surgical revision were observed in 20 patients: 3 in S-ICD group (1.8%) and 17 in TV-ICD group (10.1%; p = .002). Compared with TV-ICD patients, S-ICD patients showed a significantly lower risk of lead-related complications (0% vs. 5.9%; p = .002) and a similar risk of pocket-related complications (0.6 vs. 2.4; p = .215) and device infection (0.6% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.000). Complications observed in S-ICD patients resulted in a significantly lower number of complications-related rehospitalizations (median 0 vs. 1; p = .013) and additional hospital treatment days (1.0 ± 1.0 vs. 6.5 ± 4.4 days; p = .048) compared with TV-ICD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TV-ICD, S-ICD is associated with a lower risk of complications, mainly due to a lower risk of lead-related complications. The management of S-ICD complications requires fewer and shorter rehospitalizations.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children and adolescents: results from the S-ICD "Monaldi care" registry

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are widely accepted therapy in children and adolescents who are survivors of cardiac arrest or for high-risk patients with inheritable channelopathies, cardiomyopathies, or congenital heart disease. Initial experience with subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) systems has shown a high efficacy in adults. However, the use of S-ICD in children and adolescents implies some specific considerations, as the safety for these patients is unknown and recommendations among physicians may vary widely.

METHODS

We reviewed the data and studied the indications for S-ICD in children and adolescents and discuss the preliminary clinical experience.

RESULTS

From a cohort of 297 patients enrolled in the S-ICD "Monaldi care" registry that encompass all the patients implanted in the Monaldi Hospital of Naples, we considered 21 consecutive children and adolescents (mean age 13.9 years, range 8-18 years, mean body weight 59.3 kg, range 38-100 kg) who underwent S-ICD implant from April 2014 to June 2020. Mean follow-up was 41.9±21.9 months. Only one patient presented, 6 weeks after implantation, skin erosion at the inferior parasternal incision that resolved after antibiotic therapy, without the necessity of any system revision. Two patients experienced appropriate shocks and four inappropriate shocks, due to T wave oversensing or atrial arrhythmia. Only one patient, with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, required a system revision after 36 months of the first implantation and then a reintervention with a replacement of the S-ICD by a conventional ICD system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience suggests that the S-ICD device can be used in some children over the age of 8 as well as adults, with a similar rate of unwanted side effects, and early evidence of apparent efficacy.

Is 40 Joules Enough to Successfully Defibrillate With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators?

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy of conversion test performed at 40 J (defibrillation margin ≥40 J), and factors potentially associated with test failure were identified.

BACKGROUND

Current subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices deliver a maximum of 80 J. Functional defibrillation testing is recommended at S-ICD implantation, and it is usually conducted by delivering a shock energy of 65 J to ensure a safety defibrillation margin ≥15 J. Although high rates of successful conversion were reported at 65 J, limited data exist on the defibrillation margin extent.

METHODS

Ventricular fibrillation was induced and conversion test was performed by delivering a 40-J shock in 308 patients. Success was defined as termination of ventricular fibrillation by the first shock delivered in standard polarity. The S-ICD system positioning was evaluated with the PRAETORIAN score using bidirectional chest X-rays.

RESULTS

The generator was positioned in an intermuscular pocket in 301 patients (98%) and the lead was implanted by means of a 2-incision technique. The PRAETORIAN score was <90 (low risk of conversion failure) in 293 (95%) patients. Overall, ventricular fibrillation termination occurred in 259 (84%) patients with 40 J. Male gender (odds ratio [OR]: 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 13.14; p = 0.036), body mass index (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.19; p = 0.036), dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.87; p = 0.019), and PRAETORIAN score >50 (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.26 to 6.83; p = 0.013) were independently associated with conversion failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors showed a high rate of defibrillation success with 40-J shocks in S-ICD systems implanted by means of modern surgical techniques. The variables associated with shock failure were male gender, higher body mass index, and suboptimal device position according to the PRAETORIAN score.

Implantation technique and optimal subcutaneous defibrillator chest position: a PRAETORIAN score-based study

Aims

The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous pocket. Recently, a two-incision and intermuscular (IM) technique has been adopted. The PRAETORIAN score is a chest radiograph-based tool that predicts S-ICD conversion testing. We assessed whether the S-ICD implantation technique affects optimal position of the defibrillation system according to the PRAETORIAN score.

Methods and results

We analysed consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. The χ2 test and regression analysis were used to determine the association between the PRAETORIAN score and implantation technique. Two hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled. The S-ICD generator was positioned in an IM pocket in 174 patients (81.7%) and the two-incision approach was adopted in 199 (93.4%). According to the PRAETORIAN score, the risk of conversion failure was classified as low in 198 patients (93.0%), intermediate in 13 (6.1%), and high in 2 (0.9%). Patients undergoing the two-incision and IM technique were more likely to have a low (&lt;90) PRAETORIAN score than those undergoing the three-incision and subcutaneous technique (two-incision: 94.0% vs. three-incision: 78.6%; P = 0.004 and IM: 96.0% vs. subcutaneous: 79.5%; P = 0.001). Intermuscular plus two-incision technique was associated with a low-risk PRAETORIAN score (hazard ratio 3.76; 95% confidence interval 1.01–14.02; P = 0.04). Shock impedance was lower in PRAETORIAN low-risk patients than in intermediate-/high-risk categories (66 vs. 96 Ohm; P = 0.001). The PRAETORIAN score did not predict shock failure at 65 J.

Conclusion

In this cohort of S-ICD recipients, combining the two-incision technique and IM generator implantation yielded the lowest PRAETORIAN score values, indicating optimal defibrillation system position.

Clinical trial registration

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

Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block combined with parasternal block in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND

The standard approach to subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation often requires general anesthesia or anesthesiologist-delivered deep sedation. Ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) combined with parasternal block (PSB) has been proposed in order to provide anesthesia/analgesia and to reduce the need for sedation during S-ICD implantation. In this pilot study, we compared the double-block approach (SAPB + PSB) with the single-block approach (SAPB only) and with the standard approach involving local anesthesia and sedation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 22 patients undergoing S-ICD implantation: in 10, the single-block approach was adopted; in 12, the double-block approach. As a control group, we retrospectively enrolled 14 consecutive patients who had undergone S-ICD implantation under standard local anesthesia and sedation in the previous 6 months. Intra- and postprocedural data, including patient-reported pain intensity, were collected and compared in the three study groups.

RESULTS

The double-block approach was associated with a shorter procedure duration than the single-block and standard approaches (63.3 ± 7.9 vs 70.1 ± 6.8 vs 76.9 ± 7.8 min; P < .05) and with a lower dose of local an aesthetic for infiltration (18.9 ± 1.7 vs 27.5 ± 4.6 vs 44.6 ± 4.0 cc; P < .001). Both the double- and single-block approaches were associated with lower pain intensity at the device pocket and the lateral tunneling site (P < .05). The double-block approach proved superior to the other two approaches in controlling intraoperative pain at the parasternal tunneling site (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, SAPB combined with PSB was superior to SAPB alone and to the standard approach in controlling intraoperative pain during S-ICD implantation. In addition, this approach resulted in shorter procedure durations.

Successful defibrillation verification in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients by low-energy shocks

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous one. Defibrillation efficacy depends on maximum device output and on the optimal device location at device implantation.

HYPOTHESIS

We sought to investigate the defibrillation safety margin in real life clinical practice.

METHODS

We sought to understand what is the efficacy of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) termination at S-ICD implantation using lower energies than the recommended 65 J.

RESULTS

Sixty-four consecutive S-ICD recipients underwent VF termination attempts at implantation with energies ranging from 20 to 50 J. Overall, VF termination occurred in 84% of patients with ≤40 J, in 88% with 45 J, and in 100% with 60 J. Intermuscular S-ICD placement was associated with 94% VF termination at ≤40 J. An ejection fraction <35% was associated to higher energy requirement for defibrillation; however, an intermuscular S-ICD placement conferred 90% defibrillation efficacy at 31 ± 5 J in this patients subset.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a hypothesis-generating observation that prompts a methodologically correct investigation to prove that a 60 J output S-ICD can provide an adequate safety margin to terminate VF in clinical practice. This would enable superior device longevity and/or device downsizing for pediatric/small size patients.