The Italian subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator survey: S-ICD, why not?

The prevalence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and heart failure patients eligible for remote monitoring in Germany

BACKGROUND

In Germany, contemporary data on the prevalence of patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is lacking. Recently, ICD patients with heart failure (HF) fulfilling pre-defined criteria by the G-BA (Federal Joined Committee) are eligible for remote monitoring (RM) reimbursement. This investigation aims to evaluate the prevalence of HF patients with an ICD meeting these criteria.

METHODS

Annual national quality assurance data from all German hospitals on newly implanted ICDs, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 2010 and 2021 were obtained to build a prevalence model. The number of ICD patients eligible for RM was calculated by applying the main G-BA inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The ICD prevalence increased continuously from 2010 to 2017 (202.637 patients in 2017) and decreased with a lower rate until 2022. The model calculated an ICD prevalence of 190.698 patients in 2022 of which an estimated 120.941 ICD patients with HF were eligible for RM. This reflects approximately 63% of the actual total estimated ICD patient population in Germany.

CONCLUSIONS

The model identified a large patient population currently eligible for RM. To our knowledge, this is the first study providing information on the size of this ICD patient population with HF in Germany. With only a fraction of eligible patients currently receiving RM, these findings may facilitate future planning, resource calculations and scale-up of RM. The building of a specific infrastructure focussing on efficient use of resources reflects a mandatory prerequisite for successful RM implementation.

Impact of Age on Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in a Large Patient Cohort: Mid-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an accepted alternative to transvenous (TV) ICD to provide defibrillation therapy to treat life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias in high-risk patients. S-ICD outcomes by age group have not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the authors sought to report S-ICD outcomes in different age groups in a multicenter S-ICD post-approval study (PAS) involving the largest cohort of patients ever reported.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively enrolled in the S-ICD PAS and stratified based on age: young, aged 15-34 years; adult, aged 35-69 years; and elderly, aged ≥70 years. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes through 3 years of follow up after implantation were compared.

RESULTS

The S-ICD PAS enrolled 1,637 patients. Elderly patients were more likely to receive an S-ICD as a replacement of a TV-ICD (15.1% elderly vs 12.3% adult vs 7.4% young). Secondary prevention indication decreased with age (32.7% young vs 22.2% adult vs 20.5% elderly). Mortality rate was significantly higher in the elderly group (24.0% elderly vs 13.0% adult vs 7.4% young; P < 0.0001), whereas the complication rate did not differ significantly (12.3% young vs 11.3% adult vs 8.1% elderly). Rates of appropriate shock (12.7% young vs 13.0% adult vs 13.8% elderly) and inappropriate shock (7.8% young vs 9.1% adult vs 8.8% elderly) rates did not differ between groups (P = 0.96 and P = 0.98, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant complications and appropriate and inappropriate shock rates were similar among age groups. S-ICD for secondary prevention was more common in the young group. Replacing a TV-ICD for an S-ICD increases with age. (S-ICD System Post-Approval Study; NCT01736618).

Clinical course of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a transvenous or subcutaneous defibrillator

AIMS

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is a life-saving therapy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at risk of sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator complications are of concern. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) does not use transvenous leads and is expected to reduce complications. However, it does not provide bradycardia and anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). The aim of this study was to compare appropriate and inappropriate ICD interventions, complications, disease-related adverse events and mortality between HCM patients implanted with a S- or transvenous (TV)-ICD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive HCM patients implanted with a S- (n = 216) or TV-ICD (n = 211) were enrolled. Propensity-adjusted cumulative Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to compare 5-year event-free survival and the risk of events. The S-ICD patients had lower 5-year risk of appropriate (HR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.15-0.65; P = 0.002) and inappropriate (HR: 0.44; 95%CI: 0.20-0.95; P = 0.038) ICD interventions, driven by a high incidence of ATP therapy in the TV-ICD group. The S- and TV-ICD patients experienced similar 5-year rate of device-related complications, albeit the risk of major lead-related complications was lower in S-ICD patients (HR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.038-0.79; P = 0.023). The TV- and S-ICD patients displayed similar risk of disease-related complications (HR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.27-1.52; P = 0.309) and mortality (HR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.29-1.87; P = 0.521).

CONCLUSION

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients implanted with a S-ICD had lower 5-year risk of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies as well as of major lead-related complications as compared to those implanted with a TV-ICD. Long-term comparative follow-up studies will clarify whether the lower incidence of major lead-related complications will translate into a morbidity or survival benefit.

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.

"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.

Combined Use of S-ICD and Absorbable Antibacterial Envelopes: A Proof-of-concept Study

BACKGROUND

Absorbable antibacterial envelopes (AAEs) are currently recommended in patients undergoing a transvenous ICD implantation in cases at high risk of infection, who are now preferably implanted with a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). Nevertheless, experiences using a combined approach with S-ICD and AAE have not been reported. The aim of our study was to evaluate this strategy in patients at very high risk of infection.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were implanted with the S-ICD+AAE using our combined approach, restricted to patients who would fit our decisional flow algorithm identifying very high-risk patients. Patients were followed up 1 month after discharge and every 6 months thereafter. Complications were defined as device-related events requiring medical or surgical intervention for resolution and/or device reprogramming.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (92% males, mean age 58.5±14.1 years) were implanted with the S-ICD device and the AAE using our combined approach. The most common high-infective risk factors were diabetes requiring insulin treatment (80%) and CKD requiring hemodialysis (48%), with 7 (28%) patients presenting with more than 2 risk factors. A single mild early post-operative hematoma was observed that was managed conservatively with a spontaneous resolution. Despite a very high-risk cohort, only a single late pocket infection was detected and solved conservatively with antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary data of this proof-of-concept study show how a combined deployment of AAE and S-ICD in selected patients at very high risk of infection is a safe and feasible technique and may offer a reliable treatment option in specific and selected clinical settings.

Subcutaneous ICD for more and transvenous ICD for few?!

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in primary or secondary prevention with thousands of ICDs implanted every year worldwide. Whilst ICD are more commonly implanted transvenously (TV), this approach carries high risk of peri- and post-procedural complications. Subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) have been introduced to overcome the intravascular complications of TV system by placing all metalware outside the chest cavity for those with an indication for a defibrillator and no pacing requirements. In conclusion, a review of the current guidelines recommendations regarding S-ICD may be needed considering the emerging evidence which shows high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming algorithms. A stronger recommendation may be developed for selective patients who have an indication for single-chamber ICD in the absence of negative screening, recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or pacemaker indication. These criteria encapsulate a large proportion (around 70%!) of all ICD eligible patients.

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.

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.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in elderly patients: outcome and predictors of mortality

PURPOSE

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the therapy of choice for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. The number of elderly patients receiving ICDs is increasing. This study aimed to assess the outcome of patients according to their age at the time of implantation, and to identify variables potentially associated with patient survival.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and December 2019, we retrospectively enrolled all consecutive patients in whom ICD implantation had been performed for primary or secondary prevention at our center.

RESULTS

During the study period, 670 patients underwent ICD implantation. We stratified the population into four age-classes: Class 1 (23%) (pts aged less than 60 years), Class 2 (28%) (pts aged between 60 and 70 years), Class 3 (39%) (pts aged between 70 and 80 years) and Class 4 (9%) (pts aged 80 years or older). Over a median follow-up of 42 months, the rate of deaths in Class 4 was higher than in Classes 1 and 2 (log-rank test, P < 0.01), but was comparable to that in Class 3 (P = 0.407). With increasing age, we observed more complications at the time of implantation and during follow-up. On multivariate analysis, higher NYHA class, creatinine level and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score were identified as independent predictors of death, while age was not associated with worse prognosis. Higher body mass index, higher NYHA class and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score were also confirmed as independent predictors of hospitalizations or death due to any cause.

CONCLUSION

This study showed good survival in ICD patients in all age-groups, including those aged ≥80 years. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score seems to be a stronger predictor of death than age.

State-of-the-art consensus on non-transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

Within the last decade, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems with non-transvenous leads were developed in order to minimize complications related to the cardiovascular position of transvenous ICD leads. This national expert consensus gives an overview of potential indications for the implantation of non-transvenous ICD systems, and provides specific recommendations for implantation, follow-up, and complication management in patients with subcutaneous ICD. Regarding particular issues like the necessity for shock efficacy testing, or the clinical outcome as compared to transvenous ICD, randomized data are expected in the near future.

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.

Effects of defibrillation shock in patients implanted with a subcutaneous defibrillator: a biomarker study

Aims

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after defibrillation testing (DFT). In an experimental swine study, subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) shocks caused less myocardial damage than traditional ICD shocks. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between S-ICD shock and acute cardiac damage in humans, as evaluated by means of sensitive and highly specific circulating biomarkers.

Methods and results

We calculated the variation in the serum levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-CTnI) and creatine kinase-MB mass concentration (CK-MB mass), measured before and after an S-ICD shock delivered during intraoperative DFT. We also measured the degree of haemodynamic stress, as the variation in the serum levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and copeptin (CP), after the S-ICD shock. We analysed 30 consecutive patients who received an S-ICD and who underwent DFT by means of a single 65 J shock. The levels of biomarkers did not change from baseline to 1 h post-shock, i.e. hs-CTnI (from 0.029 ± 0.005 ng/mL to 0.030 ± 0.005 ng/mL, P = 0.079) and CK-MB mass (from 1.37 ± 0.17 ng/mL to 1.41 ± 0.18, P = 0.080) and remained stable 6 and 24 h after DFT. The plasma NT-proBNP did not change, whereas CP levels were significantly higher at 1 h post-shock evaluation. However, 6 h after DFT, the levels had returned to the baseline and remained stable at 24 h.

Conclusion

The S-ICD shock did not seem to cause myocardial injuries. Although CP levels temporarily rose after DFT, they returned to basal levels within 6 h, which suggests that DFT does not have long-term prognostic implications. ICD shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after DFT. We showed that serum levels of biomarkers of myocardial damage did not increase after high-energy DFT in patients who had undergone S-ICD device implantation. This suggests that S-ICD shock does not have long-term prognostic implications.