Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial

Lead Management: Device Programming and Defibrillation Threshold Testing

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) and improve survival in patients with a history of life-threatening arrhythmia or sudden cardiac arrest, and in select populations at high risk of SCD due to ventricular arrhythmias. However, patients with ICDs may receive inappropriate or unnecessary shocks, which have been associated with pro-arrhythmia, psychological sequelae, poor quality of life, and increased mortality. The benefits and risks of ICD therapy are therefore directly impacted on by physician operative and programming decisions. This article aims to provide a detailed review of transvenous ICD programming as guided by clinical trials.

A manual synchronous low energy shock impedance as a predictor of successful defibrillation testing during subcutaneous ICD implantation

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend defibrillation testing (DFT) during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Implant position, patient characteristics and device factors, such as shock impedance, influence defibrillation success. To evaluate the shock impedance, a manual synchronous 10J shock (low energy synchronous shock [LESS]) can be delivered, without the need to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF).

OBJECTIVE

To compare LESS and DFT impedance values and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LESS impedance for predicting a successful DFT during S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive S-ICD implantations were included. Shock impedances were compared by paired t-tests. Univariate analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with successful DFT. A prediction model of successful DFT based on LESS impedance was assessed by logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the ROC curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were used to evaluate the accuracy of LESS impedance.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included (52 ± 14 years; 69% male). LESS and DFT impedance values were highly correlated (r2 = 0.97, p < .01). Patients with a failed first shock had higher body mass index (BMI) (30 ± 3 vs. 25.7 ± 4.3, p = .014), higher mean LESS (120 ± 35Ω vs. 86. ± 23Ω, p = .0013) and DFT impedance (122 ± 33Ω vs. 87 ± 24Ω, p = .0013). ROC analysis showed that LESS impedance had a good diagnostic performance in predicting a successful conversion test (AUC 84% [95% CI: 0.72-0.92]) with a cutoff value of <94Ω to identify a successful DFT (sensitivity 71%, specificity 73%).

CONCLUSION

LESS impedance values without the need to induce VF can intraoperatively predict a successful DFT.

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.

Procedural Outcome and 1-Year Follow-Up of Young Patients Undergoing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation-Insights from the German DEVICE I+II Registry

Background: The number of young patients receiving ICDs or CRT-Ds has been increasing in recent decades and understanding the key characteristics of this special population is paramount to optimized patient care. Methods: The DEVICE I+II registry prospectively enrolled patients undergoing ICD/CRT-D implantation or revision from 50 German centers between 2007 and 2014 Data on patient characteristics, procedural outcome, adverse events, and mortality during the initial stay and 1-year follow-up were collected. All patients under the age of 45 years were identified and included in a comparative analysis with the remaining population. Results: A total number of 5313 patients were enrolled into the registry, of which 339 patients (6.4%) were under the age of 45 years. Mean age was 35.0 ± 8.2 vs. 67.5 ± 9.7 years, compared to older patients (≥45 years). Young patients were more likely to receive an ICD (90.9 vs. 69.9%, p < 0.001) than a CRT-D device (9.1 vs. 30.1%). Coronary artery disease was less common in younger patients (13.6 vs. 63.9%, p < 0.001), whereas hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (10.9 vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001) and primary cardiac electrical diseases (11.2 vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) were encountered more often. Secondary preventive ICD was more common in younger patients (51.6 vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001). Among those patients, survival of sudden cardiac death (66.7 vs. 45.4%, p < 0.001) due to ventricular fibrillation (60.6 vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001) was the leading cause for admission. There were no detectable differences in postoperative complications requiring intervention (1.5 vs. 1.9%, p = 0.68) or in-hospital mortality (0.0 vs. 0.3%, p = 0.62). Median follow-up duration was 17.9 [13.4-22.9] vs. 16.9 [13.1-23.1] months (p = 0.13). In younger patients, device-associated complications requiring revision were more common (14.1 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001) and all-cause 1-year-mortality after implantation was lower (2.9 vs. 7.3%, p = 0.003; HR 0.39, 95%CI: 0.2-0.75) than in older patients. Conclusions: Young patients < 45 years of age received defibrillator therapy more often for secondary prevention. Rates for periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality were very low and without differences between groups. Young patients have lower mortality during follow-up but experienced a higher rate of postoperative complications requiring revision, potentially due to a more active lifestyle.

Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial

BACKGROUND

The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events.

OBJECTIVE

This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias.

METHODS

This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm.

RESULTS

In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.

Relationship between ICD implantation volume and treatment parameters of patients receiving an ICD with remote monitoring

BACKGROUND

Both highly specialized heart centres and less specialized hospitals care for patients with implantable ICDs/CRT-Ds with remote monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate potential differences in patient treatment according to centre's ICD implantation volume.

METHODS

Based on their 2012 ICD/CRT-D implantation volume, centres enrolled in the NORDIC ICD trial in Germany were assigned to one of three groups: high- (HV, n= 345), medium- (MV, n= 340) or low-volume (LV, n= 189).

RESULTS

The HV-centres had a significant higher CRT-D proportion (41.7%; LV: 36.5%; MV: 23.2%; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001), significant shorter median procedure duration (49 min; MV: 58 min; LV: 60 min; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001) but significant longer median hospital stay (4 days; MV and LV: 3 days; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001) compared to MV- and LV-centres. The X-ray exposure was shorter in MV/HV-centres (MV: 3.4 min; HV: 3.6 min; LV: 5.5 min; P𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙< 0.001). Only 3.5% (LV: 2.6%; HV: 3.5%; MV: 4.1%) patients received at least one delivered inappropriate shock and 2.5% (HV: 2.0%; LV: 2.6%; MV: 2.9%) patients had withheld inappropriate ICD shocks without subsequent inappropriate shock delivery within 24.5 months of median follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Implantation volume-dependent differences were observed in the device selection, procedure duration and x-ray exposure duration. Remote monitoring in combination with adequate response pattern prevented imminent inappropriate shocks in all three groups.

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.

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).

Successful defibrillation testing in patients undergoing elective subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacement

AIMS

After implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), a defibrillation test (DFT) is performed to ensure that the device can effectively detect and terminate the induced ventricular arrhythmia. Data on DFT efficacy at generator replacement are scarce with a limited number of patients and conflicting results. This study evaluates conversion efficacy during DFT at elective S-ICD generator replacement in a large cohort from our tertiary centre.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective data of patients who underwent an S-ICD generator replacement for battery depletion with subsequent DFT between February 2015 and June 2022 were collected. Defibrillation test data were collected from both implant and replacement procedures. PRAETORIAN scores at implant were calculated. Defibrillation test was defined unsuccessful when two conversions at 65 J failed. A total of 121 patients were included. The defibrillation test was successful in 95% after the first and 98% after two consecutive tests. This was comparable with success rates at implant, despite a significant rise in shock impedance (73 ± 23 vs. 83 ± 24 Ω, P < 0.001). Both patients with an unsuccessful DFT at 65 J successfully converted with 80 J.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a high DFT conversion rate at elective S-ICD generator replacement, which is comparable to conversion rates at implant, despite a rise in shock impedance. Evaluating device position before generator replacement may be recommended to optimize defibrillation success at generator replacement.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing for Right-sided Device Implants: A Review to Inform Shared Decision-making, in Association with the British Heart Rhythm Society

Prevention of sudden death using ICDs requires the reliable delivery of a high-energy shock to successfully terminate VF. Until more recently, the device implant procedure included conducting defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing involving VF induction and shock delivery to ensure efficacy. Large clinical trials, including SIMPLE and NORDIC ICD, have subsequently demonstrated that this is unnecessary, with a practice of omitting DFT testing having no impact on subsequent clinical outcomes. However, these studies specifically excluded patients requiring devices implanted on the right side, in whom the shock vector is significantly different and smaller studies suggest a higher DFT. In this review, the data regarding the use of DFT testing, focusing on right-sided implants, and the results of a survey of current UK practice are presented. In addition, a strategy of shared decision-making when it comes to deciding on the use of DFT testing during right-sided ICD implant procedures is proposed.

Outcome and safety of intraoperative defibrillation testing during device replacement: the Simpler trial

AIMS

Intraoperative defibrillation testing (DT) during implant or replacement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been a matter of debate for many years. This debate was put to rest by the Simple and Nordic ICD trials, and the practice of testing during new implantations has essentially been almost abandoned. Old registries demonstrated an increased incidence of significant findings in DT during replacements. The aim of the present study was to evaluate frequency of significant findings and safety of DT in subjects undergoing device replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective observational multi-centre study included consecutive patients undergoing ICD generator replacement. The primary outcome was a failure to terminate induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a single shock 10 J below the maximal capacity of the device. Secondary outcomes included complications of DT. Patients were followed-up at 1- and 6-months post-procedure.  A total of 92 patients were eligible, and consented to the study, of which 84 underwent DT during battery replacement. The median age was 68 years and 79.8% were males. Induction of VF was successful in 84 patients as was a successful conversion on the first attempt in all. There were no procedure-related complications. During follow up one patient had two appropriate ICD shock events. In four patients, ICD programming was changed. None suffered inappropriate shock. There was no evidence of lead malfunction. Two deaths occurred, none of which was related to arrhythmia.

CONCLUSION

The present study found DT was not associated with complications in patients undergoing ICD generator replacement but produced no clinically important information.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing and Long-term Follow-up in Chagas Disease

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death is the most common cause of death in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC). Because most CCC patients who are candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) meet criteria for high defibrillation threshold values, a defibrillator threshold test (DTT) is suggested.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the use of DTT in CCC patients, focusing on deaths related to ICD and arrhythmic events, as well as treatment during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 133 CCC patients who received an ICD mainly for secondary prevention. Demographic, clinical, laboratory data, Rassi score, and DTT data were collected, with p < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 61 (SD, 13) years and 72% were men. The baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 40 (SD, 15%) and the mean Rassi score was 10 (SD, 4). No deaths occurred during DTT and no ICD failures were documented. There was a relationship between higher baseline Rassi scores and higher DTT scores (ANOVA = 0.007). The mean time to first shock was 474 (SD, 628) days, although shock was only necessary for 28 (35%) patients with ventricular tachycardia, since most cases resolved spontaneously or through antitachycardia pacing. After a mean clinical follow-up of 1728 (SD, 1189) days, 43 deaths occurred, mainly related to progressive heart failure and sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

A routine DTT may not be necessary for CCC patients who receive an ICD for secondary prevention. High DTT values seem to be unusual and may be related to high Rassi scores.

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.

Influence of "high" defibrillation thresholds on patient survival and impact of system modification

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) marks patients with poor outcomes which are improved when DFT is decreased by system modification (subcutaneous coil implant; SM).

BACKGROUND

The electrical substrate generating fast ventricular arrhythmias may generate poor outcomes among patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), even when arrhythmias are treated successfully. Since patients with high DFTs have increased mortality, we contrasted survival among patients with high DFT treated with and without SM.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation and DFT testing at Cleveland Clinic over a 14-year period. High DFT was defined as successful defibrillation by shock strength >25 J or ≤10 J of maximal device output. Mortality was recorded using the Social Security Death Index. Survival was compared among those high DFT patients receiving SM versus the remainder.

RESULTS

Out of 6353 patients tested, 191 (3%) had high DFT (32.1 ± 3.7 J) versus 13.9 ± 4.9 J in the remainder ("acceptable DFT," p < .001). One hundred twenty-one high DFT patients (63%; 33.3 ± 3.4 J) underwent SM, which significantly decreased DFT (24.8 ± 5.9 J; p < .001). Seventy patients (37%; 30.3 ± 3.3 J) did not undergo SM. During follow-up, 38% (2363/6162; 7.8 yrs) patients with acceptable DFT died versus 48% high DFT patients (91/191; 5.6 yrs.; p < .001). Concomitantly, 48% patients with SM (58/121) died, as compared to 47% patients (33/70) without SM (p = .91); median follow-up 4.9 yrs).

CONCLUSION

Patients with high DFT have a higher mortality than those with acceptable DFT. The additional subcutaneous coil implant decreases DFT to an acceptable range but does not appear to improve survival. The electrical substrate underlying high DFT appears to determine survival.

A 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm correlates with a 65 J defibrillation impedance during subcutaneous defibrillator implantation using an intermuscular technique

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing (DT) is recommended during the subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) placement. We sought to compare 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm (SR) with 65 J defibrillation impedance and evaluate device position on a postimplant chest X-ray (CXR) using an intermuscular (IM) technique.

METHODS

Consecutive S-ICD implantations between 12/2019 and 12/2020 at The Ohio State University were reviewed. All implantations were performed using a two-incision IM technique. Standard DT with 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR were performed unless contraindicated. The PRAETORIAN score was calculated based on CXR.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (age: 47.2 ± 15.8 years old, male: n = 26 [70.3%], body mass index: 30.1 ± 6.7 kg/m² ) underwent IM S-ICD implantation, and of those, 27 (73%) underwent both 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR. The coefficient of determination (R² ) between 10 J shock impedance and 65 J shock impedance was 0.84. The mean of an impedance difference was 1.6 ± 4.8 Ω (minimum - 11 and maximum 8). Postimplant CXR was available for 33 out of 37 patients (89.2%). The PRAETORIAN score was less than 90 in all patients and the mean score was 32.7 ± 8.8.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that 10 J shock impedance in SR correlated well with 65 J defibrillation impedance during IM S-ICD implantation. An IM implantation technique provides excellent generator location on postimplant CXR. The IM technique combined with 10 J shock in SR may be sufficient to predict and ensure the defibrillation efficacy of the S-ICD.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and defibrillation testing: A propensity-matched pilot study

BACKGROUND

To date, only a few comparisons between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) patients undergoing and those not undergoing defibrillation testing (DT) at implantation (DT+ vs DT-) have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcomes of 2 propensity-matched cohorts of DT+ and DT- patients.

METHODS

Among consecutive S-ICD patients implanted across 17 centers from January 2015 to October 2020, DT- patients were 1:1 propensity-matched for baseline characteristics with DT+ patients. The primary outcome was a composite of ineffective shocks and cardiovascular mortality. Appropriate and inappropriate shock rates were deemed secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1290 patients, a total of 566 propensity-matched patients (283 DT+; 283 DT-) served as study population. Over median follow-up of 25.3 months, no significant differences in primary outcome event rates were found (10 DT+ vs 14 DT-; P = .404) as well as for ineffective shocks (5 DT- vs 3 DT+; P = .725). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, DT performance was associated with a reduction of neither the primary combined outcome nor ineffective shocks at follow-up. A high PRAETORIAN score was positively associated with both the primary outcome (hazard ratio 3.976; confidence interval 1.339-11.802; P = .013) and ineffective shocks alone at follow-up (hazard ratio 19.030; confidence interval 4.752-76.203; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

In 2 cohorts of strictly propensity-matched patients, DT performance was not associated with significant differences in cardiovascular mortality and ineffective shocks. The PRAETORIAN score is capable of correctly identifying a large percentage of patients at risk for ineffective shock conversion in both cohorts.

Defibrillation Safety Margin Testing in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: Results From the NCDR

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the predictors of defibrillation safety margin (DSM) testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion and factors associated with inadequate DSM in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).

BACKGROUND

There are few data about the prevalence and safety of DSM testing in those with CHD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients with atrial or ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot, transposition of the great vessels, Ebstein anomaly, or common ventricle undergoing a transvenous ICD procedure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry from April 2010 to March 2016, and DSM testing was assessed. Inadequate DSM was defined as a lowest successful energy tested <10 J than the maximum output of the ICD generator.

RESULTS

Of all ICD recipients (N = 7,024), DSM testing was performed in 52.0% (n = 3,654). The mean lowest successful energy tested was 20.7 ± 7.3 J. Of those with DSM adequacy data available (n = 3,623), an inadequate DSM occurred in 13.8% (n = 501). After multivariable adjustment, DSM testing was not associated with in-hospital complications or death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28) but was associated with lower odds of prolonged hospital stay (>3 days) (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84; p < 0.0001). An inadequate DSM was not associated with in-hospital death or complications (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.04) or prolonged hospital stay (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.995 to 1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

DSM testing is being performed less frequently over time and seems safe in those with CHD. An inadequate DSM was not associated with worse in-hospital outcomes.

Advances in cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator therapy: Medtronic Cobalt and Crome

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices have revolutionized the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. New device generations tend to be launched every few years, with incremental improvements in performance and safety and with an expectation that these will improve patient management and outcomes while remaining cost-effective. As a result, today's cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices are quite different from the pioneering but often bulky devices of the late 20th century. This review discusses new and improved features developed to target specific needs in managing heart failure patients, some of which are especially pertinent to the current worldwide healthcare situation, with focus on the latest generation of CRTs with defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators from Medtronic.

The subcutaneous ICD for prevention of sudden cardiac death: Current evidence and future directions

Despite major advances in medical therapy, sudden cardiac death remains an important cause of cardiovascular mortality. In order to improve the risk-benefit balance of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems, a totally subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) system was developed and approved for use in Europe in 2009. The currently available S-ICD system has undergone several important hardware- and software-related modifications and improvements over the last 10 years aimed at further improving its efficacy and safety. The results of the PRAETORIAN trial, that is, the first randomized comparison of S-ICD versus transvenous ICDs, of the prospective UNTOUCHED study, and the overall consistent observational data underline that current generation S-ICD systems may be a valid alternative in patients with an ICD indication in whom bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy is not required due to a lower risk of system-related problems. This review summarizes the key differences between the two systems, improvements in hardware components and algorithms over time, as well as most recent clinical evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the S-ICD.

Defibrillation testing during implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: a necessary standard or becoming redundant?

Since the publication of the SIMPLE and NORDIC trials, defibrillation testing (DFT) is rarely performed during routine implantation of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). However, the results of these trials cannot be extrapolated to the later introduced subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and a class I recommendation to perform DFT during the implantation of these devices remains in the current guidelines. Due to the high conversion success rate of DFT on one hand, and the risk of complications on the other, a significant number of physicians omit DFT in S‑ICD recipients. Several retrospective analyses have assessed the safety of the omission of DFT and report contradicting results and recommendations. It is known that implant position, as well as device factors and patient characteristics, influence defibrillation success. A better comprehension of these factors and their relationship could lead to more reliable and safer alternatives to DFT. An ongoing randomised clinical trial, which is expected to end in 2023, is the first study to implement a method that assesses implant position to identify patients who are likely to fail their DFT.

Impact of defibrillation threshold testing on burden of heart failure hospitalizations

Background: Defibrillation threshold testing (DT) following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation has not shown to improve mortality. However, the impact of DT on burden of heart failure (HF) hospitalisations has not been well defined.Methods: We studied retrospectively consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation or generator change between 2008 and 2014. Primary outcome was burden of HF hospitalisations within 30 days following implantation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, and ICD shock within 30 days and one-year mortality.Results: Three hundred and eleven of 501 patients (62%) were in DT+ group versus 190 (38%) were in DT- group. The percentage of new implantations was higher in DT+ group than in DT- group (69% vs 39%, p < .001) but the distributions of NYHA function classes were similar between two groups. The burden of HF hospitalisations at 30-days was significantly higher in DT+ group than in DT- group (17.4% vs 4.7%, HR 0.842, 95% CI 0.774-0.915, p < .0001). No difference in mortality, stroke or ICD shocks was found between two groups at 30 days and mortality at 1 year.Conclusions: DT after new ICD or generator replacement was associated with increased HF hospitalisation rates at 30 days after ICD implant in a non-trial HF population. However, there was no association between DT and mortality, stroke and ICD shocks at 30 days or mortality at 1 year. The increased burden of HF hospitalisation in this observational study requires validation by randomised studies.

Defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine practice in some Asian countries for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, there are few long-term data about the necessity of intraoperative DFT testing in an Asian population. We investigated the safety of DFT testing and the long-term clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing de novo transvenous ICD implantation were randomized to undergo periprocedural DFT testing. The study included 67 patients (50 males; 51.5 ± 16.9 years) who underwent ICD implantation with (n = 33) or without (n = 34) intraoperative DFT testing between March 2012 and February 2014. We compared first-shock success, composite safety end points (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days), arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical characteristics and the procedural-related adverse event rate (3.0% with DFT vs. 0% with non-DFT, p = 0.214) did not differ between groups. The programmed output of the first shock was lower in the DFT testing group (22.9 ± 4.4 J vs. 25.3 ± 5.4 J, p = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between groups for all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.526) or first-shock success rate for ventricular arrhythmia (100% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no between-group differences in periprocedural safety, complications, and long-term clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that DFT testing in Asian patients allows reduction of the programmed output of the first shock, but does not affect long-term clinical outcomes.

The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and sudden cardiac death prevention: indications, device selection, and outcome

Multiple randomized multicentre clinical trials have established the role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as the mainstay in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention. These trials have focused mainly on heart failure patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction and were mostly conducted two decades ago, whereas a more recent trial has provided conflicting results. Therefore, much remains to be determined on how best to balance the identification of patients at high risk of SCD together with who would benefit most from ICD implantation in a contemporary setting. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have also evolved from the simple, defibrillation-only devices implanted surgically to more advanced technologies of multi-chamber devices, with physiologic bradycardic pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrial and ventricular therapeutic pacing algorithms, and subcutaneous ICDs. These multiple options necessitate individualized approach to device selection and programming. This review will focus on the current knowledge on selection of patients for ICD treatment, device selection and programming, and future directions of implantable device therapy for SCD prevention.

Collapse

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in review

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is a completely extrathoracic device that has recently been FDA approved for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in select populations. Although the transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) has a proven mortality benefit in multiple patient populations, there are significant risks both with implantation and years after its placement. The S-ICD may help prevent some of these complications. Currently, the S-ICD is typically implanted in patients with prior device infection or at an increased risk for an infection, younger patients with difficult venous access related to either hemodialysis or difficult cardiac anatomy, patients who live active lifestyles, and those who may outlive the TV-ICD leads. There is an absolute contraindication for S-ICD implantations for patients who need pacing either for ventricular tachycardia or bradycardia because this device cannot perform these functions. To date, there are no randomized controlled trial (RCT) data evaluating the safety and efficacy of this relatively new device. Observational studies of both the S-ICD alone and in comparison with the TV-ICD have showed promising results, including a decrease in lead-related and periprocedural complications as well as a high level of effectiveness at terminating ventricular arrhythmias. These analyses over time may have contributed to the evolution and comfortability with the S-ICD system, as physicians are more often referring for and/or implanting this device for patients with appropriate indications. Furthermore, inappropriate shock rates with the S-ICD have decreased over time especially with dual zone programming. This review summarizes the results of a multitude of observational studies with respect to patient selection for the S-ICD, complication rates, appropriate and inappropriate shock rates, and programming. This review also tackles current ongoing randomized trials. Although the results of ongoing trials will be helpful, there is still a continued need to evaluate the efficacy of the S-ICD in broader patient populations including patients with several comorbidities and older patients so that more patients can be considered for this potentially lifesaving device.

Analysis of Temporal Trends and Variation in the Use of Defibrillation Testing in Contemporary Practice

IMPORTANCE

Defibrillation testing (DFT) is performed during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to assess the capacity of the device to detect and terminate ventricular arrhythmias. However, DFT can result in complications and omission of its use has been shown to be safe.

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal trends and variation in the use of DFT in contemporary practice in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cross-sectional study used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. A total of 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities undergoing first-time ICD implantation from April 2010 to December 2015 were included. Data analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to August 15, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Defibrillation testing was assessed using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Defibrillation testing rates and median odds ratios (MORs) were assessed over time. The MOR represents the odds that a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would be tested compared with if he or she had received care at a hospital with low testing rates.

RESULTS

Of the 499 211 patients from 1794 different facilities included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age of the population was 65.5 (13.4) years and 356 681 patients (71.4%) were men. The use of DFT declined from 71.6% in the first calendar quarter of 2010 to 36.4% in the fourth quarter of 2015 (P < .001). Patients undergoing DFT were more likely than those without testing to have ischemic heart disease (170 569 [58.1%] vs 116 295 [56.6%]), ventricular tachycardia (91 500 [31.2%] vs 58 949 [28.7%]), and less advanced heart failure (New York Heart Association class I and II, 153 188 [52.2%] vs 91 215 [44.4%]) (P < .001 for all). The MOR for the use of defibrillation testing was 3.78 (95% CI, 3.54-4.03) in 2010, increasing to 6.05 (95% CI, 5.61-6.52) in 2015, indicating that by 2015 a randomly selected patient receiving testing at a hospital with high testing rates would have a 6-fold higher odds of being tested than if they had received care at a hospital with low testing rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Defibrillation testing at the time of ICD placement in the United States may have declined over time; however, institutional variation in its use appears to be marked and increased. This variability in the reduced use of defibrillation testing could reflect differences in individual or institutional cultures of practice.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial: A prospective randomized CompArative trial of SubcutanEous ImplanTable CardiOverter-DefibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation testing

In transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) implants, routine defibrillation testing (DFT) does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death but patients are exposed to the risk of complications related to DFT. The conversion rate of DFT in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is high and first shock efficacy is similar to TV-ICD efficacy rates. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective two-arm trial designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of omitting DFT in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation in which the S-ICD system components are optimally positioned. Positioning of the S-ICD will be assessed with the PRAETORIAN score. The PRAETORIAN score is developed to systematically evaluate implant position of the S-ICD system components which determine the defibrillation threshold on post-operative chest X-ray. A total of 965 patients, scheduled to undergo a de novo S-ICD implantation without contra-indications for either DFT strategy, will be randomized to either standard of care S-ICD implantation with DFT, or S-ICD implantation without DFT but with evaluation of the implant position using the PRAETORIAN score. The study is powered to claim non-inferiority of S-ICD implantation without DFT in de novo S-ICD patients in respect to the primary endpoint of first shock efficacy in spontaneous arrhythmia episodes. Patients with a high PRAETORIAN score (≥90) in the interventional arm of this study will undergo DFT according to the same DFT protocol as in the control arm. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence to safely omit a routine DFT after S-ICD implantation in patients with correct device positioning.

Contemporary practice of CRT implantation in scandinavia compared to Europe

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contemporary practice of CRT implantation in Scandinavia and Europe.

DESIGN

We used data from The European CRT Survey II to highlight similarities and differences in the practice of CRT implantation between Europe (EUR) and Scandinavia (SCAND) and between the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Implant data from the national pacemaker registries were used to calculate coverage.

RESULTS

The coverage was 24% in SCAND and 11% in EUR. SCAND patients were more often referred from another centre and follow-up was less often to be performed at the operating centre. Telemonitoring was more commonly used. More patients had AV-block or pacemaker dependency/expected high RV pacing percentage as indication for CRT. A CRT-P was more commonly used, and ischaemic aetiology was slightly less common. Echocardiography was more often used to determine LVEF, as well as occlusive venography and placing the RV lead first. In DK implanters tended to choose a septal RV position. Quadripolar leads were more often and a test shock less often used. The paced QRS duration was slightly longer and the narrowing of QRS with CRT more limited. Procedure times and preoperative LVEF were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In Scandinavia AV-conduction disturbance and/or a ventricular pacing indication was a more common indication for CRT, suggesting adaptation of the most recent guidelines ahead of their publication. A test shock was almost never performed, in agreement with recent scientific evidence. CRT-P was more often used, the procedures seem more centralized and quadripolar leads were preferred.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Current Status

When the transvenous ICD initially came into use for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was universally performed. However, DFT testing is no longer routinely recommended for transvenous ICD implantation except in certain situations. Risk scores can help guide the decision to perform DFT testing. The subcutaneous ICD represents an area of uncertainty, with limited data available regarding the role of DFT testing in these devices. Current guidelines give a class I recommendation for performing DFT testing at the time of implant. Further studies are needed before this recommendation can be safely dismissed.

Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been an integral part of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to confirm appropriate sensing of ventricular fibrillation and to establish an adequate safety margin for defibrillation. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding benefits of routine DFT testing. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess its mortality benefit. We searched MEDLINE for studies comparing mortality outcomes in ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing to those who did not. For the second analysis, studies comparing outcomes in patients with high- vs low-energy DFT were included. Odds ratio and standard errors were calculated, and inverse variance method in a random-effect model was used to combine effect sizes. Fifteen studies with 10,975 subjects comparing outcomes in patients who underwent routine DFT testing during ICD implantation and those who did not were included. There was no difference in the group that did not undergo DFT testing with regards to all-cause mortality (OR 0.935; CI 0.725-1.207; P = 0.606), cardiac mortality (OR 0.709; CI 0.385-1.307; P = 0.271), noncardiac mortality (OR 0.921; CI 0.701-1.210; P = 0.554), and arrhythmic mortality (OR 1.152; CI 0.831-1.596; P = 0.396). Percentage of successful appropriate first shocks among the two groups showed no difference. Five studies with 2278 subjects were included in the second analysis comparing patients with low DFT vs high DFT. Patients with high DFT had no significant increase in all-cause mortality compared to patients with low DFT (OR 0.527; CI 0.034-8.107; P = 0.646). Patients requiring higher DFT had no increased all-cause mortality compared to patients with lower DFT. Routine DFT testing during ICD implantation does not confer any significant benefit.

Cost Saving Potential of an Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients after ICD Implantation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a relevant comorbidity in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Latest generation single-chamber ICD allow the additional sensing of atrial tachyarrhythmias and, therefore, contribute to the early detection and treatment of AF, potentially preventing AF-related stroke. The present study aimed to measure the impact on patient-related costs of this new ICD compared to conventional ICD. A Markov model was developed to simulate the long-term incidence of stroke in patients treated with a single-chamber ICD with or without atrial sensing capabilities. The median annual cost per patient and its difference, the number of strokes avoided, and the cost per stroke avoided were estimated. During a 9-year horizon, the costs for the ICD and stroke treatment were €570 per patient-year for an ICD with atrial sensing capabilities and €491 per patient-year for a conventional ICD. Per 1,000 patients, 4.6 strokes per year are assumed to be avoided by the new device. Higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores are associated with higher numbers of avoided strokes and larger potential for cost savings. Apart from clinical advantages, the use of ICD with atrial sensing capabilities may reduce the incidence of stroke and, in high-risk patients, may also contribute to reduce overall health care costs.

Effect of defibrillation threshold testing on effectiveness of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is recommended with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD).

OBJECTIVE

To describe first shock efficacy for appropriate SICD therapies stratified by the presence of implant DFT testing.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients receiving SICDs at our institution and stratified them based on whether implant DFT testing was performed. Appropriate shocks were reviewed to see if ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) terminated with a single shock. First shock efficacy was stratified by implant DFT status.

RESULTS

178 patients implanted with SICDs and followed in our center were included in this study. Of these, 135 (76%) underwent DFT testing (DFT (+) group). In the DFT (+), 80 appropriate shocks were needed to treat 69 episodes of VT/VF. The first shock was effective in 61 out of 69 episodes (88.4%), whereas multiple shocks were required to terminate VT/VF in the remaining eight episodes. Among 43 patients without implant DFT testing (DFT (-) group), 20 appropriate shocks to treat 17 episodes of VT/VF occurred in seven patients. VT/VF was successfully terminated with the first shock in 16 out of 17 episodes (first shock efficacy 94.1 %). There was no significant difference in first shock effectiveness between those with and without implant DFT testing (P  =  0.97).

CONCLUSION

A strategy that omits DFT testing at implant did not appear to compromise the effectiveness of the SICD. These data suggest that routine DFT testing at SICD implant might not be necessary. Randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Predictors of a high defibrillation threshold test during routine ICD implantation

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that routine defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not necessary. However a small group of patients might be at risk if no DFT testing is performed.

METHODS

Patients with a new pectoral ICD implantation in our hospital between 2006 and 2014 were included in a retrospective registry. A clinical high DFT was defined as a safety margin <10 J of the maximal device output. Logistic regression for prediction of high DFT was performed using patient characteristics, clinical, echocardiographic and device-related parameters.

RESULTS

DFT testing was performed in 788/864 (91.2%) procedures. In 76 (8.8%) patients no DFT testing was performed mainly due to atrial fibrillation, intra-cardiac thrombus, hemodynamic instability or logistical reasons. A high DFT was present in 44 (5.6%) patients. A QRS duration ≥150 ms, a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤25%), a severely dilated left ventricle ≥60 mm and right sided pre-pectoral implantations were univariate predictors of a high DFT. Independent predictors of a high DFT were a LVEF ≤25% (HR 2.195, 95%CI 1.085-4.443) and right sided pre-pectoral implantations (HR 3.135, 95% CI 1.186-8.287).

CONCLUSIONS

A high DFT is still present in about 5% of patients and is more frequent in patients with a severely dilated left ventricle, a very low LVEF, right sided pre-pectoral implantation and wider QRS duration. It might be clinically important to continue DFT testing in these high risk patients.