1-Year Prospective Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Shocks: The Subcutaneous ICD Post Approval Study

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.

Inappropriate Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shocks-A Rare Case of Triple Counting

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias is a significant contributor to cardiovascular deaths worldwide. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have shown efficacy in preventing and reducing mortality from SCD, but traditional transvenous ICDs have inherent challenges and drawbacks, such as lead fractures, lead-associated endocarditis, and lead failure. To address these issues, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) have been developed. S-ICDs lack pacing capacity but are a valid alternative for patients at high risk for infection or with difficult venous access. Pre-implantation screening can help prevent inappropriate device shocks. We present a case in which a patient received inappropriate S-ICD therapy, which was attributed to the triple counting of P-, R-, and T-waves in a patient with sinus rhythm. This is an unusual occurrence, and, to the best of our knowledge, there are only a limited number of case reports documenting inappropriate shocks due to the oversensing of P-waves and T-waves.

Real-world evidence for the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in China: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been shown to be non-inferior to transvenous ICDs in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), but there is still a lack of evidence from clinical trials in China. We investigated whether S‑ICD implantation in the Chinese population is safe and feasible and should be promoted in the future.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing S‑ICD implantation at our center were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data were collected within the median follow-up period of 554 days. Data concerning patient selection, implantation procedures, complications, and episodes of shock were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 70.2% of all 47 patients (median age = 39 years) were included for secondary prevention of SCD with different etiologies. Vector screening showed that 98% of patients were with > 1 appropriate vector in all postures. An intraoperative defibrillation test was not performed on six patients because of the high risk of disease deterioration, while all episodes of ventricular fibrillation induced post implantation were terminated by one shock. As expected, no severe complications (e.g., infection and device-related complications) were observed, except for one case of delayed healing of the incision. Overall, 15 patients (31.9%) experienced appropriate shocks (AS) with all episodes terminated by one shock. Two patients (4.3%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IAS) due to noise oversensing, resulting in a high Kaplan-Meier IAS-free rate of 95.7%.

CONCLUSION

Based on appropriate patient selection and standardized implantation procedures, this real-world study confirmed the safety and efficacy of S‑ICD in Chinese patients, indicating that it may help to promote the prevention of SCD in China.

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.

Right ventricular function is a predictor for sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring anti-tachycardic pacing in arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy: insight into transvenous vs. subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion

AIMS

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) patients develop ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) responsive to anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). However, VA episodes have not been characterized in accordance with the device therapy, and with the emergence of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD), the appropriate device prescription in ARVC remains unclear. Study aim was to characterize VA events in ARVC patients during follow-up in accordance with device therapy and elicit if certain parameters are predictive of specific VA events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a retrospective single-centre study utilizing prospectively collated registry data of ARVC patients with ICDs. Forty-six patients were included [54.0 ± 12.1 years old and 20 (43.5%) secondary prevention devices]. During a follow-up of 12.1 ± 6.9 years, 31 (67.4%) patients had VA events [n = 2, 6.5% ventricular fibrillation (VF), n = 14], 45.2% VT falling in VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s), n = 10, 32.3% VT resulting in ATP, and n = 5, 16.1% patients had both VT resulting in ATP and ICD shock(s). Lead failure rates were high (11/46, 23.9%). ATP was successful in 34.5% of patients. Severely impaired right ventricular (RV) function was an independent predictor of VT resulting in ATP (hazard ratio 16.80, 95% confidence interval 3.74-75.2; P < 0.001) with a high predictive accuracy (area under the curve 0.88, 95%CI 0.76-1.00; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

VA event rates are high in ARVC patients with a majority having VT falling in the VF zone resulting in ICD shock(s). S-ICDs could be of benefit in most patients with ARVC with the absence of severely impaired RV function which has the potential to avoid consequences of the high burden of lead failure.

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.

Pre-implant predictors of inappropriate shocks with the third-generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

AIMS

Despite recent improvements, inappropriate shocks emitted by implanted subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) remain a challenge in 'real-life' practice. We aimed to study the pre-implant factors associated with inappropriate shocks for the latest generation of S-ICDs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three-hundred patients implanted with the third-generation S-ICD system for primary or secondary prevention between January 2017 and March 2020 were included in this multicentre retrospective observational study. A follow-up of at least 6 months and pre-implant screening procedure data were mandatory for inclusion. During a mean follow-up of 22.8 (±11.4) months, 37 patients (12.3%) received appropriate S-ICD shock therapy, whereas 26 patients (8.7%) experienced inappropriate shocks (incidence 4.9 per 100 patient years). The total number of inappropriate shock episodes was 48, with nine patients experiencing multiple episodes. The causes of inappropriate shocks included supraventricular arrhythmias (34.6%) and cardiac (30.7%) or extra-cardiac noise (38.4%) oversensing. Using multivariate analysis, we explored the independent factors associated with inappropriate shocks. These were the availability of less than three sensing vectors during pre-implant screening [hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.93; P = 0.035], low QRS/T wave ratio in Lead I (for a threshold <3; HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.00-11.49; P < 0.001), history of supraventricular tachycardia (HR, 8.67; 95% CI, 2.80-26.7; P < 0.001), and being overweight (body mass index > 25; HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.10-6.45; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Automatic pre-implant screening data are a useful quantitative predictor of inappropriate shocks. Electrocardiogram features should be taken into consideration along with other clinical factors to identify patients at high risk of inappropriate shocks.

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

BACKGROUND

Early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) studies included atypical cohorts of patients who were younger with fewer comorbidities. Recent S-ICD studies included patient populations with more comorbidities.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to determine the incidence and predictors of S-ICD-related infection over a 3-year follow-up period and to use these results to develop an infection risk score.

METHODS

The S-ICD Post Approval Study is a US prospective registry of 1637 patients. Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes with 3-year postimplantation follow-up were compared between patients with and without device-related infection. A risk score was derived from multivariable proportional hazards analysis of 22 variables.

RESULTS

Infection was observed in 55 patients (3.3%), with 69% of infections occurring within 90 days and a vast majority (92.7%) within 1 year of implantation. Late infections more likely involved device erosion; no infections occurred after year 2. The annual mortality rate postinfection was 0.6%/y. No lead extraction complications or bacteremia related to infection were observed. An infection risk score was created with diabetes, age, prior transvenous ICD implant, and ejection fraction as predictors. Patients with a risk score of ≥3 had an 8.8 hazard ratio (95% confidence interval 2.8-16.3) of infection compared with a 0 risk score.

CONCLUSION

Infection rates in the S-ICD Post Approval Study were similar to other S-ICD populations and not associated with systemic blood-borne infections. Late infection (>1 year) is uncommon and associated with system erosion. A high-risk infection cohort can be identified that may facilitate preventive measures.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death and with an ICD indication for primary or secondary prevention. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline via Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and HTA-INAHTA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies with ≥100 S-ICD patients and a low to moderate risk of bias were eligible for inclusion. The studies' quality and the available evidence's strength were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the ROBINS-I tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. One RCT, a post hoc analysis of the RCT (n = 849) and four controlled observational studies (n = 7149) were included. The quality of the available evidence was graded as low to very low, except for the primary composite endpoint of the RCT, which was rated as moderate quality. After 4 years, the RCT showed that S-ICD was non-inferior to TV-ICD regarding the composite endpoint of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications (68 [15.1%] vs. 68 [15.7%], hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.71, 1.39], non-inferiority margin 1.45, P = 0.001). The RCT and two observational studies reported statistically significantly fewer lead complications in S-ICD patients (after 4 years: 1.4% vs. 6.6%, HR 0.24, 95% CI [0.10, 0.54]; after 3 years: 0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.03; and after 5 years: 0.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.03). Identified evidence about appropriate and inappropriate shocks was inconclusive: The RCT detected statistically significantly more appropriate shocks in patients with S-ICD (83 [19.2%] vs. 57 [11.5%], HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.08, 2.12], P = 0.02), whereas one observational study showed a statistically significantly lower rate in the S-ICD group (9.9%, 95% CI [7.0, 13.9], vs. 13.9%, 95% CI [10.8, 17.8], P = 0.003). Regarding inappropriate shocks, one observational study reported statistically significantly higher rates in the S-ICD cohort (11.9% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.007), whereas the RCT and two other observational studies did not detect a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P > 0.05). None of the included studies showed a statistically significant difference in overall mortality and shock efficacy between patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD (P > 0.05). The available evidence is insufficient to show the superiority of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD, hindering the widespread use of the technology. Results of the recently completed ATLAS trial are to be awaited, and the anticipated role of the S-ICD needs to be clearly formulated.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Usefulness of the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score in a Large Mixed Patient Cohort of Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

Background: Decision-making in primary prevention is not always trivial and many clinical scenarios are not reflected in current guidelines. To help evaluate a patient’s individual risk, a new score to predict the benefit of an implantable defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention, the MADIT-ICD benefit score, has recently been proposed. The score tries to predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and non-arrhythmic death based on data from four previous MADIT trials. We aimed at examining its usefulness in a large single-center register of S-ICD patients with various underlying cardiomyopathies. Methods and results: All S-ICD patients with a primary preventive indication for ICD implantation from our large single-center database were included in the analysis (n = 173). During a follow-up of 1227 ± 978 days, 27 patients developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias, while 6 patients died for non-arrhythmic reasons. There was a significant correlation for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n = 29, p = 0.04) to the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia. However, the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias could not sufficiently be predicted by the MADIT-ICD VT/VF score (p = 0.3) in patients with (n = 142, p = 0.19) as well as patients without structural heart disease (n = 31, p = 0.88) and patients with LV-EF < 35%. Of the risk factors included in the risk score calculation, only non-sustained ventricular tachycardias were significantly associated with sustained ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.02). Of note, non-arrhythmic death could effectively be predicted by the proposed non-arrhythmic mortality score as part of the benefit score (p = 0.001, r = 0.3) also mainly driven by ICM patients. Age, diabetes mellitus, and a BMI < 23 kg/m2 were key predictors of non-arrhythmic death implemented in the score. Conclusion: The MADIT-ICD benefit score adds a new option to evaluate expected benefit of ICD implantation for primary prevention. In a large S-ICD cohort of primary prevention, the value of the score was limited to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Future research should evaluate the performance of the score in different subgroups and compare it to other risk scores to assess its value for daily clinical practice.

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.

Air entrapment as a potential cause of early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction: a systematic review of the literature

AIMS

Air entrapment (AE) has been reported as a potential cause of early inappropriate shocks (ISs) following subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, but a cause-effect relationship is not always evident. This systematic review aims to analyse this phenomenon concerning implantation techniques, electrogram (EGM) features, radiologic findings, and patient management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases following the PRISMA guidelines to obtain all available literature data since 2010 on S-ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE. The final analysis included 54 patients with AE as a potential cause of S-ICD malfunction. Overall, the aggregate incidence of this condition was 1.2%. Of ICD malfunctions possibly due to AE, 93% were ISs, and 95% were recorded within the first week following implantation. Radiologic diagnosis of AE was confirmed in 28% of the entire study cohort and in 68% of patients in whom this diagnostic examination was reported. At the time of device malfunction, EGMs showed artefacts, baseline drift, and QRS voltage reduction in 95, 76, and 67% of episodes, respectively. Management included ICD reprogramming or testing, no action (observation), and invasive implant revision in 57, 33, and 10% of patients, respectively. No recurrences occurred during follow-up, irrespective of management performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Device malfunction possibly due to AE may occur in ∼1% of S-ICD recipients. Diagnosis is strongly suggested by early occurrence, characteristic EGM features, and radiologic findings. Non-invasive management, principally device reprogramming, appears to be effective in most patients.

OUP accepted manuscript

Aims

To report 5-year outcomes of EFFORTLESS registry patients with early generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices.

Methods and results

Kaplan–Meier, trend and multivariable analyses were performed for mortality and late (years 2–5) complications, appropriate shock (AS) and inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. Nine hundred and eighty-four of 994 enrolled patients with diverse diagnoses (28% female, 48 ± 17 years, body mass index 27 ± 6 kg/m², ejection fraction 43 ± 18%) underwent S-ICD implantation. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range 4.7–5.5 years). All-cause mortality was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 7.2–11.3%) at 5 years; 703 patients remained in follow-up on study completion, 171 withdrew including 87 (8.8%) with device explanted, and 65 (6.6%) lost to follow-up. Of the explants, only 20 (2.0%) patients needed a transvenous device for pacing indications. First and final shock efficacy for discrete ventricular arrhythmias was consistent at 90% and 98%, respectively, with storm episode final shock efficacy at 95.2%. Time to therapy remained unaltered. Overall 1- and 5-year complication rates were 8.9% and 15.2%, respectively. Early complications did not predict later complications. There were no structural lead failures. Inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 5 years were 8.7% and 16.9%, respectively. Self-terminating inappropriately sensed episodes predicted late IAS. Predictors of late AS included self-terminating appropriately sensed episodes and earlier AS.

Conclusion

In this diverse S-ICD registry population, spontaneous shock efficacy was consistently high over 5 years. Very few patients underwent S-ICD replacement with a transvenous device for pacing indications. Treated and self-terminating arrhythmic episodes predict future shock events, which should encourage more personalized device optimization.

Non-transvenous ICD therapy: current status and beyond

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (S-ICDs) have been developed to offer ICD treatment to patients without venous access to the heart and to overcome complications associated with transvenous leads, particularly lead fracture/insulation defects and endocarditis. Several studies and registries have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of S‑ICD in different groups of patients. Further developments in S‑ICD technology involve the combination with devices that can provide anti-bradycardia and anti-tachycardia pacing if needed. The extravascular ICD (EV-ICD) is a new system that similarly offers ICD therapy without a transvenous lead but uses a substernal instead of a subcutaneous lead to facilitate detection of ventricular fibrillation and to provide anti-tachycardia and also temporary anti-bradycardia pacing. The first animal but also clinical data on EV-ICDs have been published. This review discusses the current state, potential advantages and limitations, and future research of both S‑ICD and EV-ICD.

The Role of Subcutaneous ICDs in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death

The ICD is an important therapy in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. The transvenous-ICD (TV-ICD) has been the primary device used for this purpose. However, mechanical and infectious complications occur with traditional TV-ICDs increasing morbidity and mortality. The subcutaneous-ICD (S-ICD) system was developed to circumvent some of these complications, but S-ICDs have their inherent set of limitations as well. These include inappropriate shock delivery, lack of bradycardia, antitachycardia or CRT pacing therapy and shorter device longevity. The S-ICD is now included in guidelines as an acceptable alternative to TV-ICDs among patients without pacing indications. This review discusses the rationale for S-ICDs by reviewing studies including the PRAETORIAN, PAS and UNTOUCHED trials.

The Subcutaneous ICD: A Review of the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN Trials

The ICD is an important part of the treatment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in many high-risk populations. Traditional transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) are associated with certain short- and long- term risks. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed in order to avoid these risks and complications. However, this system is associated with its own set of limitations and complications. First, patient selection is important, as S-ICDs do not provide pacing therapy currently. Second, pre-procedural screening is important to minimise T wave and myopotential oversensing. Finally, until recently, the S-ICD was primarily used in younger patients with fewer co-morbidities and less structural heart disease, limiting the general applicability of the device. S-ICDs achieve excellent rates of arrhythmia conversion and have demonstrated noninferiority to TV-ICDs in terms of complication rates in real-world studies. The objective of this review is to discuss the latest literature, including the UNTOUCHED and PRAETORIAN trials, and to address the risk of inappropriate shocks.

Outcomes of two versus three incision techniques: Results from the subcutaneous ICD post-approval study

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) requires incisions near the lateral chest wall, the xyphoid, and the superior sternal region (three-incision technique [3IT]). A two-incision technique (2IT) avoids the superior incision and has been shown to be a viable alternative in small studies with limited follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

To report on the long-term safety and efficacy of the 2IT compared to the 3IT procedure in a large patient cohort.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the S-ICD post approval study (PAS) were stratified by procedural technique (2IT vs. 3IT). Baseline demographics, comorbidities and procedural outcomes were collected. Complications and S-ICD effectiveness in treating ventricular arrhythmias through an average 3-year follow-up period were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1637 patients enrolled in the S-ICD PAS, 854 pts (52.2%) were implanted using the 2IT and 782 were implanted using the 3IT (47.8%). The 2IT became more prevalent over time, increasing from 40% to 69% of implants (Q1-Q4). Mean procedure time was shorter with 2IT (69.0 vs. 86.3 min, p < .0001). No other differences in outcomes were observed between the two groups, including rates of infection, electrode migration, inappropriate shocks and first shock efficacy for treating ventricular arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort of patients implanted with an S-ICD and followed for 3 years the 2IT was as safe and effective as the 3IT while significantly reducing procedure time.

Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms.

Methods:

Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points.

Results:

S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%.

Conclusions:

This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379.